User talk:Sphilbrick/Archive 18

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Sphilbrick. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Creation of Anthiyalam

Hello what is your idea on me creating an already deleted page called Anthiyalam --Njavallil ...Talk 2 Me —Preceding undated comment added 19:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC).

It might depend on why it was deleted, although that is rare. In most cases, if someone can do an adequate job on an article, the fact that it has deleted before is not an issue. Especially if it was deleted because someone accidentally copied some material, if you avoid that problem, you will be fine. If an article has been deleted before because the subject was deemed to be not notable, you might have a problem if you cannot provide any better references than were provided before. (I'm answering generically, let me look and see why this was deleted before, and I'll respond with more relevant info.)--SPhilbrick T 20:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I see that Anthiyalam was deleted because it was created by a blocked or banned user. Assuming that isn't you, there should be no problem creating that article. Having said that, if someone checks the history, they may wonder if you edited under a different user name. If you haven't no problems.--SPhilbrick T 20:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

thanks 4 the huge advice. --Njavallil ...Talk 2 Me 20:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Anthiyalam is made, now will you asses it? --Njavallil ...Talk 2 Me 20:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It has no references. That's the main issue. I don't know what "LP" means as a type of school. Please spell it out. You are overlinking, I removed some of the inappropriate links.--SPhilbrick T 20:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

In case you haven't heard, Njavallil is now blocked as another one of many sockpuppets. Cheers —DoRD (talk) 18:07, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info--SPhilbrick T 16:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Category:2012 American television series endings

Requesting permission for re-creation. I didn't want to waste anytime putting this through deletion review (kind of useless, anyway) and since you were the first administrator to delete this category, I thought I would just ask you. The category can be companion to Category:2012 American television series debuts. Quasy Boy 15:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I deleted it in January, as a purely administrative deletion. It was empty at the time. More recently (on 21 November) it was deleted by JamesBWatson, with the explanation "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion". That discussion is here. Maybe I'm missing something, but the rationale seems solid—how can there be any items in this category now? I personally have no other opinion, and am unlikely to take admin action, your best bet would be to contact those who supported deletion and/or JamesBWatson--SPhilbrick T 15:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I spoke to JamesBWatson and he completely ignored me: User talk:JamesBWatson#Category:2012 American television series endings. Perhaps I'll speak to Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk · contribs), the original nominator. Quasy Boy 15:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Betting on the Bay

Thanks for catching the reference. That is why I am a big fan of using the quote parameter in citations. Anyone can see what material is actually being used as the source in an article, even if that article is no longer available in the future. I found another source and replaced Time magazine. I don't know if Time changed the piece after publication or if I cut and pasted the wrong reference from another article I was working on. Once I read a 6 page New York Times magazine article 4 times to see what reference a person was using from the article. I couldn't use the search function because the editor did not use any exact phrase from the article. If you use the quote parameter you can always find the reference in a long article and can easily check it later for accuracy against the original. Thanks also for help at the CCI. By letting me know which articles use too much original text, it lets me make changes before deletion. The Fram approach of deletion first, I find problematic, since it deletes categories and infoboxes that have to be recreated. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

My initial reaction to the quote parameter was negative, but I've softened my position, and agree it can be useful for the reasons you mention. I still object to long passages, prefer to keep them as short as possible. I've seen a few on the cusp, and have simply moved on (although trimmed one today), not sure how I want to handle, but I will report future observations to you, and we'll see if we can work it out.

Thanks for fixing the Barnegat Bay article, seems fine now.--SPhilbrick T 18:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

RAN discussion

Your feedback would be welcomed here. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 01:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Orpheum Circuit

Can you email me the deleted Orpheum Circuit article. I will rewrite, but need the categories and lede and links to other articles. I would prefer if Fram would reduce to a stub and contact me, rather than delete outright, but he prefers this way. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

"I would prefer if Fram would reduce to a stub and contact me, rather than delete outright." This seems a fair enough request to me, by the way. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:25, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Then change the copyvio policy and the speedy deletion criterion. We don't keep pages where every version in the history is a partial or complete copyright violation. We don't stubify them for occasional copyright violators, why should we do this for serial ones? I would prefer if RAN spent his time on Wiki helping with the CCI instead of editing articles like K12 (company), but we don't always get what we want here. I am not going to spend my time checking every single sentence to see what part is a copyvio and what isn't, to create a stub in that way. The article started as a copyvio, and whole sections of it are still copyvios, and that's about all I need to know. Fram (talk) 17:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Done--SPhilbrick T 15:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

No knowledge, not much imagination either

I tried to imagine a reader of Wikipedia coming acorns the Krugman article, reading the whole thing, checking some of the references, then glancing at the influences section, and when not seeing Dornbusch exclaiming "Wow, I was thinking that an advisor to Presidents, a winner of the Nobel Prize and the Clark medal, must be a very accomplished economist, but no Dornbusch? Must be a dinosaur."

Then you imagine a very rare reader. Most people only read the parts of a long and complex article that happen to be relevant to some question they have about the subject. And on politically charged topics, many people come looking for ammunition. Many people come to cherry-pick. Some, growing irate when they find their favorite cherry isn't there for the picking, will go and insert their favorite cherry -- even when it's contradicted by other well-sourced facts in the article itself, facts they didn't notice because they didn't get anywhere near reading the whole article..

I can't remember seeing you around for any of those wars over Paul Krugman, when we were trying to get the rotten cherries out. Those conflicts happen all the time. So I don't particularly need imagination here. All I need is memory.

Someone (Einstein, it's claimed) once said, "Imagination is more important than knowledge." All your comment tells me is that, on this subject, you suffer from a serious deficit in both categories: you know next to nothing about Paul Krugman as an economist (which he is -- no really!), and you were apparently only able to imagine one kind of very unlikely reader even after I'd spun a number of much more likely reader scenarios for you. But I guess those scenarios were in those "walls of text" you ignore despite the requirement of your beloved WP:BRD to give the views of others a fair hearing, under AGF. Yakushima (talk) 16:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Your sig

Please consider removing or modifying the HTML and styling in your sig, in order to make it meet WCAG web accessibility guidelines; see WP:ACCESS for more. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? I scanned the link, but did not see the problem. Is it the color?--SPhilbrick T 17:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. The colour, the font and the size specified in pixels. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Sphilbrick. You have new messages at Pigsonthewing's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

What about this: --SPhilbrick Talk 15:25, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

RAN: Revisiting Topic Ban

Sphilbrick, please see this discussion. Your contribution is invited. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

HELP ME=

Hello...im antony1821....please show me the way that can verify my pictures that they are legal!!!!!

I responded on your talk page.--SPhilbrick T 13:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

answer

Well, i took them from google pictures ...you know icons and you found them!!!

I'm not familiar with Google Pictures. I do know Google images, perhaps it is the same thing. In short, if you use Google to find pictures, in almost all cases, they are under copyright. You canNOT use them.--SPhilbrick T 13:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

FYI on BLP and 3RR

[1].

Since you showed yourself pretty ignorant of WP:PRESERVE from the get-go, I figured maybe you're ignorant of the above. I AM NOT JOKING ABOUT YOUR DELETIONS AND REVERTS BEING WP:BLP VIOS. I want to get the article into compliance with the guidelines you apparently worship. I just don't personally worship them. I prioritize keeping useful information that's WP:BLP-compliant. You prioritize sloppily-written guidelines. Just because you contend over inclusion of the information on guideline-compliant grounds alone doesn't make the material contentious in itself. And in fact, you have said explicitly that you don't find it contentious in itself. You wrote on the Talk page: "As for the ones I removed, it isn't my position that they did not have influence on Krugman, they almost certainly did." Yakushima (talk) 14:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

You've said this a number of times. I'll request again, please cite the relevant passage of the Policy, and the diffs where I violated it. If you can't tell me what you think I did wrong, I can't correct it.--SPhilbrick T 15:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Unbelievable. If an edit reflects both negatively and inaccurately on the subject of a BLP, it's obviously a WP:BLP vio. You must know this. You're an admin. I don't need to show you diffs. You know what edits you did. You know what you deleted. You just can't follow my reasoning for why a truncated influences list reflects negatively on this subject, and moreover why it's inaccurate. You can't follow it because you don't know the relevant aspects of the field and you don't WANT to know even the most elementary facts about those aspects. You've basically said so yourself. I guess you just want other people to do the work. I even offered you an easy bit, and you turned it down -- too busy, you said. But not too busy to keep replying to me. ("Curiously", as you would say.) Yakushima (talk) 16:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Please read, before responding. You may have moved on from PRESERVE to BLP, but that issue is at BLPN, where it belongs. My request above, which I cannot believe was misunderstood, is to provide a quote from the PRESERVE policy, and diffs where you think I violated it. If you've given up on that claim, that's good, but if you haven't I need to know what you think violated it. One more time, this request relates to PRESERVE, not BLP.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 16:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Honoratus Kozminski

Not seeing an entry on this person, I went to start one, only to be advised that you deleted one a year ago. Since the system advises contacting you before starting a new one, I am doing so. I see your reason was the violation of copyright. I'm not familiar with the source listed so I suppose my sources are different. I don't plan on copying any material wholesale, in any event, so would there be any issue with re-creating an entry about him? Daniel the Monk (talk) 15:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, there should be no problem. --SPhilbrick Talk 15:28, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Paul Krugman - influenced by, yet again

If you followed the subject closely, you'd know: there is nothing controversial about whether Solow et al. were significant influences on Paul Krugman. And simply deleting significant facts about a person from their WP bio is not, as you claim "improving" those articles. The Economic Views section of this bio has been tagged for expansion for a long time. For some reason, it's been up to me to do most of that expansion. (Oddly, it seems that an awful lot of the grunt work on his actual positions in economics has been left to me.) Yes, it requires effort. But I Don't Wanna Do the Work is not an acceptable excuse for deleting uncontroversial facts from an article.

By the way: if WP:PRESERVE dates from 2001, well, that might be called "withstanding the test of time."

Exercise for you (if you're actually willing to do some real work on an article about a subject you apparently know little about): verify Joseph Stiglitz's degree of influence on Paul Krugman's career. Here, let me get you started: [2]. You might want to add Dixit while you're at it. Without the grounding they provided, perhaps he would not have contributed much in one of three areas of economics cited by the Nobel committee in awarding him the prize -- and thus might not have won the Nobel (or for that matter the harder-to-get Bates medal in econ before that.) Yakushima (talk) 01:50, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Exercise for you (if you're actually willing to do some real work on an article about a subject you apparently know little about)

One of the desires of the Wikipedia community is that editors discuss issues, even vigorously, but avoid characterizing other editors. Even if the observation was true, you ought not to make it, but you don't have any evidence to support the claim. I haven't edited this article enough for you to have a coherent position on my understanding of the subject matter, and I'll bet you haven't scoured my edit history on other articles, if only because that would not support the claim either. So let's start, if we can, by discussing the merits of the argument for inclusion or exclusion, and eschew the personal comments, which are unlikely to lead to anything productive. Deal?

On the merits, I fear you have missed the point. I don't believe I have stated anywhere that Solow et al are or are not significant influences on Krugman. So saying it isn't controversial is a strawman, it isn't the issue.

My point is narrow, but so far, unchallenged. We have extensive policies, guidelines and practice to help us determine whether inclusion of the influence of economist X. Y or Z on Krugman deserves to be in the article. I won't cite, because I'm sure you know, the policies on weight and referencing inter alia. Writing a few sentences on paragraphs on economists with influence on Krugman is not trivial, nor is it rocket science. However, the point is, that it hadn't been done. The policy is very clear. Not only that, it isn't even a controversial policy. Infoboxes are summaries of what is in the article. Therefore, if it isn't in the article it doesn't belong in the infobox.

You've essentially agreed, as you've added some text mentioning the influences. However, your key citation is not well-formed, so I hope you will revisit the article, and fix the reference, so we can then debate the merits of the inclusion.--SPhilbrick T 14:03, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

On fixing the ref, I fixed it for you. --SPhilbrick T 14:29, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't broken. Take a look: [3]

Did you read your own link? Your link is to the edit where I fixed it.--SPhilbrick T 13:57, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I read it. Several times. And several times, I read "FanD" and "FandD" were identical. On more careful inspection, I see that you're right: you fixed the kind of thing I ordinarily get right. But you know what? It required of me a more careful inspection of a change that I was only making to get you off my back, since you seem to insist on a very narrow, non-commonsense interpretation of a not-very-well-written guideline (Infobox MOS) as "the rules". (While disparaging WP:PRESERVE simply because it's been around for a long time. Cherry-picking, much?) PLEASE go edit an article about baseball or something. Paul Krugman is very difficult territory (BLP, controversial figure, complex economic issues), and dealing with people with political (or in your case, bureaucratic/wikilawyering) agendas only makes what's already very difficult almost impossible. Yakushima (talk) 14:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I read "FanD" and "FandD" were identical. Exactly. Now you know why it took me some time to clean up your mistake, which you would have picked up immediately had you actually looked at the page in preview or after editing. I'm trying to AGF but your condescension is getting a little thick. You have no idea how many hours I have spend read Krugman's work, not just his recent NYT material but his Slate columns, his personal website and some of his Nobel winning work on International trade. Your patronizing tone is ill-founded, and anyone who thinks they can intuit someone else's knowledge in one edit has essentially given up the argument. Your post essentially translates to "oops, you are right and I was wrong" but you have a curious way of expressing your thoughts.--SPhilbrick T 14:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of "thick condescension" -- when you defend your decision in terms of a sloppily worded guideline as if that guideline were well-thought-out policy, while disparaging the policy WP:PRESERVE as negligible in this instance only because you "feel" it needs to "evolve" -- well, it seems like you're looking down on the work of quite a number of policy framers. So I'd say the condescension on this issue starts, in fact, with you. Frankly, if you've actually read as much Krugman as you seem to claim above, you'd know that all the names listed were of serious influences on him; if you didn't have time to fix the Infobox influences problem, you would have been far more in conformance with policy by just tagging them all "citation needed". Instead, all you've done in your edits is suppress information, leaving an incorrect impression with readers of the infobox, and apparently you've done it only out of some high-handed bureaucratic impulse that somehow elevates a Wikipedia guideline over Wikipedia policy. And only because that's how you "feel" about the two. OK, then: See you on the article talk page. And on the talk page for Infobox MOS. Yakushima (talk) 12:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

You refer to a "a sloppily worded guideline ". I didn't find the guideline all that hard to follow, but I have extensive experience editing such documents, and know from experience that seemingly obvious phrases can be interpreted differently. If you think the guideline can be improved, you are welcome to propose wording changes on the talk pages. If you can't come up with better wording, but can identify problems, please point them out so I and other editors can work on addressing any issues.

You sound as if I'm ignoring WP:PRESERVE, when in fact, I'm following it. As the policy states:

If you think a page needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do it, but preserve any content you think might have some value on the talk page, along with a comment about why you made the change.

I moved the names and the relevant cites to the Talk Page, where you and other interested editors can talk through how the material should be added to the main article.

You said "… you would have been far more in conformance with policy by just tagging them all "citation needed". " Actually, probably not. I don't think there ever should be references in an infobox. There are some rare exceptions, and I am separately discussing that issue. Unless someone can defend the use of citations in infoboxes generally, or delineate when they should be included, I don't support the use of references in infoboxes, and plan to remove those in Krugman, but plan to wait until that discussion reaches a consensus.

"See you on the article talk page. And on the talk page for Infobox MOS." Good, because it makes more sense to discuss article content and policy issues in those places.--SPhilbrick T 13:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

convenience break

"Your edit comment "(no matter how obvious to those who know the subject)" here betrays a fundamental misunderstanding. The essay You do need to cite that the sky is blue partially makes the point, but the more direct point is that the audience for Wikipedia articles isn't exclusively for those steeped in the subject matter, it is closer to the opposite."

But that's why I put the names back in: for those not steeped in the subject. The audience for Paul Krugman is about equally well-reached whether the influence of Solow, et al. is footnoted or not (though citing sources will give the more curious in the audience a head start on learning more). That audience is certainly less well-reached if readers some away with the absurdly incorrect impression that the only two economists to influence Krugman significantly are Keynes and Hicks -- which is precisely the incorrect impression your amputative edit left. If you deleted the names out of ignorance, and out of a narrow-minded application of The Rules, well, I think that's precisely the kind of thing WP:IAR is for.

You deleted those names without thinking, "Hm, maybe I can improve this article by adding more material and RS support." Articles don't get better simply by conforming to narrowly-applied rules. They get better by becoming more relevant and communicative. This article became less so, because of your edits. I have no idea why you consider that defensible. Yakushima (talk) 07:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

"I haven't edited this article enough for you to have a coherent position on my understanding of the subject matter." Yes, you have. You did it in one single edit. You deleted the names of long-known influences on Krugman. If you'd had any real understanding of the subject matter, you would have felt bad about that. Like a lot of brilliant people, Krugman's standing on the shoulders of more than two giants -- major figures in the field whose names obviously didn't even ring a bell with you. Yakushima (talk) 07:48, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

And by the way, I'm not impressed by all your talk of "rules". There are policies and there are guidelines. Infobox MOS is a guideline, not a policy. As with all guidelines one should "use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions." Well, common sense plus knowledge of the subject clearly indicates that the stellar economists Krugman trained under, and worked with, and whose work he built upon, should not be deleted from a list of influences on his work simply because nobody has bothered to expand a section of this economist's biography devoted to, well, this economist's actual economics research career, which happens to have included huge influence from those other economists, without which we wouldn't know the name Paul Krugman. That section of has been flagged for expansion for a long time. Leaving the list of influences as it was would actually help future editors expand that section. But no, you deleted most of the names from the list. Because, you know, The Rules. Yeah, right. Yakushima (talk) 08:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

"You've essentially agreed, as you've added some text mentioning the influences." No, I don't agree, "essentially" or otherwise. As I thought I made crystal clear in my edit summary: I did it to get you off my back. The statement I added was in fact redundant: it said nothing beyond what the infobox already said about influences -- and it was not just a redundant addition, it was a redundant addition that further lengthened an article that could always use some trimming. A better treatment of how Krugman's economic thought has been influenced by other major economists will have to wait. There's something much more important: I've noticed a number of baseball player bios where the fact that the player bats left is mentioned in the infobox, but not in the article text. Among other egregious violations of your interpretation of Infobox MOS. Why don't you and I go "improve" those articles in the same way you "improved" Paul Krugman: by deleting that information? It's a basis for cooperation, is it not? And it's hard to think of any business that could be more pressing! Yakushima (talk) 14:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

A curious rant, given that, after I pointed out the correct way to add the material, you added it correctly. Maybe your essay is your own way of saying "thanks". To that, I say, "you're welcome". --SPhilbrick T 14:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I told you I only did it to get you off my back, not because I thought you were right. And I meant it. But apparently you still don't get it. OK: now I'll go delete what your bureaucratic mind found so satisfying. Because until such time as that section gets the desired expansion, including when and how Krugman's economic thought was influenced by the listed people (and a couple more not yet listed), the infobox is actually already a good enough summary -- no need to further bulk out the article with pro forma kow-towing to you. Yakushima (talk) 14:37, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

"if you are unable to restrain yourself form saying ... again and again, that [...] I think guidelines trump policy ...."

You certainly acted as if they did. You continue to act as if they do. You think that it's OK to delete useful information from an article, information that violates no policies whatsoever, simply because it violates mere guidelines -- guidelines that I happen to think are perfectly fine, by the way, but which are unfortunately obscure to most Wikipedia editors. You characterize such deletions as actual improvements. Dude, have you forgotten? There are readers out there. Readers who deserve better information, even when the treatment is incomplete.

It so happens in this case, somebody noticed what I'd long noticed with some irritation -- that Keynes and Hicks were the only listed "influences" in the infobox, which makes Paul Krugman look like some dinosaur in his own field. (The dinosaurs do get Nobels sometimes; Hayek's prize proved that.) I was always on some other mission when editing Paul Krugman, usually addressing some pinhead ideologue's lousy tendentious edit, so I didn't do anything about this problem. Then some editor (not me) goes and adds a list of names. Me, I have no problem with any of those names. Because they were all, in fact, major influences on Krugman. If I had a beef with this person's additions to that list, it was that it was decidedly incomplete (though it covered most of the required territory, insofar as "influences" has any rigorous definition anyway). But no matter: somebody had at least gotten a start on improving that aspect of the article.

You go and rip them out. Suddenly, Krugman's a dinosaur economist again. (A common, but false, criticism of him, actually -- there are economic commentators out there who like to say he doesn't know his modern macro simply because his Nobel-winning work wasn't specifically macro.)

Why is your deletion not WP:BLP violation? Especially after someone (namely me) documents that these people actually are major influences on Krugman? You never answer this question. Never. No matter how many times I bring it up.

You ripped them out while violating WP:PRESERVE. You, an admin. I had to point out to an admin that he was violating policy?! Your snotty comeback: WP:PRESERVE should evolve - it's just so 2001. What?! Somebody who just did a real knuckle-dragger edit on Paul Krugman is telling me a time-tested policy needs to evolve?!

I add the names back in, add some more names (why was Samuelson missing? I had no idea) and I add citations. Result: ugly. I don't like it. (As I've said, I don't even like "influences" in the infobox.) There are some primary sources cited -- iffy. But at least important information is available to readers again -- particularly to all the Krugman-haters out there (typically no-nothing Austrian School wannabes) who'd otherwise say, "Nobel-schnobel -- even Wikipedia, with all its horses and men, can't turn up any influences later than Hicks. This Krugman guy doesn't really know modern econ!" (People say worse about him, much worse, with much less provocation. Why encourage them?)

You rip the names out again. Pathetic.

Here's a bug up your butt, SPhilbrick: you think that when people are actually improving Wikipedia in ways that happen to not meet the most sophisticated standards, it's nevertheless such a dangerous encouragement to mischief (to others who might make superficially similar edits that are not improvements) that you're justified in suppressing information, while making the subject of the article look like less than he is. But why? If anyone happens to be thus encouraged, and actually damages an article (not the case here -- the worst here was that the improvements were weak), all you have to answer, when they complain about your reverts" is to say ""[WP:OTHERSTUFF]] - read it."

Here's another bug up your butt: you think someone else's sloppy edit puts some personal onus on you to make it better. You've said this more than once. Please tell me: where does it say that, in Wikipedia policy?

I would get these butt-bugs looked at, if I were you, SPhilbrick. Removed, ideally. I can recommend a good proctologist, if you don't know any. Yakushima (talk) 01:28, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

First, thanks for posting here, and sparing the rest of humanity. Seriously.

Second, well, it sounds like you need to rant so go ahead. If you have a specific concern, with a specific diff, I'll respond. I will comment on this: you think someone else's sloppy edit puts some personal onus on you to make it better. You've said this more than once. I said the opposite. I said "...an addition of material not meeting guidelines does not create an obligation in other editors." So if that misunderstanding bothered you, we have reason to celebrate, as it was simply your misreading.--SPhilbrick T 01:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not good with ambiguous double-negatives. I'm just judging you by your actions: apparently you felt it did create an onus -- to delete useful information, to delete actual (if sub-optimal) improvements to a BLP. A deletion that left the infobox characterizing Paul Krugman as a dinosaur in his own field, which he definitely is not if (a big IF in your case) you know anything about his econ career. Your response to not having the onus of improving other people's improvements still seems to have left some enormous onus: it resulted in you feeling responsible for deleting those improvements -- and calling the deletion an improvement. That's still the big issue: your apparent (initial) ignorance of policy (WP:PRESERVE), your continued violation of the spirit of it, with what look like WP:BLP violations as a result. I notice you still don't respond to this. Why not? Yakushima (talk) 02:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

You said: I'm just judging you by your actions: apparently you felt it did create an onus -- to delete useful information, to delete actual (if sub-optimal) improvements to a BLP. You misread them, and if I did anything to mislead you, I'm sorry. I got the impression that YOU thought I had an obligation to do more than I did, and I reject that notion. If that isn't what you think, I'm sorry I misread you.

You said, A deletion that left the infobox characterizing Paul Krugman as a dinosaur in his own field...' Please. The most charitable summary of this is "silly".

You said, if (a big IF in your case) you know anything about his econ career I may well know less than you do about this subject (not enough information to tell yet) but I'd guess I know more than 99% of editors. You do know there much more to him than just an "econ career" right?

You said, your apparent (initial) ignorance of policy (WP:PRESERVE), . I've quoted the portion of the policy supporting my edits. I have yet to see you even acknowledge this, much less post a coherent rebuttal. If you honestly feel I misunderstand the policy, please cite a diff and an explanation.

You said, I notice you still don't respond to this [BLP violation]. I thought it was a joke. I wrote a long response, but deleted it because I thought it was too snarky. I urge you to report me to BLPN; the responses MIGHT be illuminating.--SPhilbrick T 13:11, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Finally, on December 15, after I've brought up WP:BLP vio repeatedly, you say this? And on my Talk page just now, you say "I'll say it again: I honestly thought it was a joke." You were supposed to say that the first time I brought it up, if you really so fervently worship WP:BRD, and if you really thought it was a joke. There's no joke about WP:BLP. It's as serious as a heart attack. I was just finishing up a report about all this at the BLP notice board when I got your message. I'm now going to file it. Yakushima (talk) 14:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Done [4] Yakushima (talk) 14:26, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

No, I wasn't supposed to address it the first time. When someone throws up a wall of text, including everything but the kitchen sink, just to see what sticks, it isn't my obligation to respond to something I truly thought was a joke. I'm stunned that you are trying to make it a serious argument. Seriously, you have some capability of helping this project, but if you make ludicrous claims like that, you won't be taken seriously. When you repeated it, I realized you did intend it, so I responded. It isn't helpful when you claim I haven't responded, even when I have.--SPhilbrick T 14:29, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

If you assumed it was a joke, you were violating AGF. If you assumed I was throwing up a wall of text just to see what would stick, you were violating AGF. If all you see is a wall of text, nothing to draw you in or maintain your interest, there's always the possibility (especially under AGF) that the topic is just complex and knowledge-intensive, meriting more extensive treatment than, say, hashing out exactly which month in 1997 a high school basketball player began suffering from anorexia. What could be there for you, in those forbidding walls, considering that you openly (even casually) admit to having vanishingly little interest in precisely the aspects of Krugman's career that bear on whether there's WP:BLP violation in your deletions. This leaves you very poorly positioned to appreciate that the problem at the root of your multiple, and admitted suspensions of AGF in my case is simply your own low tolerance for complexity, your negligible knowledge of any relevant facts, and your lack of appetite for those facts. You don't believe I could possibly be serious, you don't believe that things could be as complicated as I say, you don't believe there's anything more to learn that could possibly be relevant. And yet you want to boss people around on the Paul Krugman talk page. Curiously. Yakushima (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Reply on the Talk page, as BLP/3RR requires. Claiming an argument is simply "false" without explanation is not in conformance with BLP/3RR. Not doing it on the Talk page is also not in conformance with BLP/3RR, which says that we need to discuss there to reah consensus. See where I reply to Bishonen. It would probably be best if you replied on that thread, to keep the discussion in one easily-found place. Yakushima (talk) 02:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

You've now been told, for the third time, that your violation of guidelines is not remedying a BLP violation. If you insist on wikilawyering, you need to get better at it.--SPhilbrick (Talk) 02:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

"You think that influences can be listed in infoboxes even when they are not in the main article" - well, "can" is the sense of "possible" is a certainty. See for example Friedrich Hayek and his much more "overstuffed" infobox, whose economist infobox violations are almost as long the entire, well-sourced list that I keep trying to maintain. (Yes, I know about WP:OTHERSTUFF. Did YOU know that I was the first to mention WP:OTHERSTUFF in our exchanges?)

But your "can" is the "can" of "may". Yes, I believe an economist infobox may contain influences that are not in the main text, IF deleting them violates WP:BLP -- as I repeatedly maintain, but as you once again fail to mention in summarizing my position, despite my repeated arguments in favor of this view. Arguments you ignored, then claimed you (silently) interpreted as "a joke". And here, once again, you oversimplify or ignore what I'm saying, in violation of the guideline WP:BRD that you pushed at me.

Here's the truth: reasonable readers can start into Paul Krugman having already fallen under false impressions promulgated by usually-reasonable people who are highly regarded in economics as they spread ignorant (or flatly dishonest) notions about Paul Krugman. I've just documented that on the talk page -- using a part of the article itself. The sooner the bio disabuses such readers of such notions, the better. Adding contemporaries as influences in the most convenient summary has other uses than that one, but it's a good place to start clearing up the misconceptions put about by the likes of Barro and Prescott (among quite a few others.)

Leaving influences only at Keynes, which you once defended in the name of what you called the economist infobox "policy", only reinforces one of many ignorant preconceptions about Krugman that float around the media. Leaving it at Keynes + Hicks + Samuelson is hardly better (especially since so many people confuse economic journalist Robert Samuelson with Nobel laureate and arch-Keynesian Paul Samuelson, who actually represent very different views.)

Krugman has a wide range of influences by the very nature of his contributions to the field; I happen to think these should be documented in the article, but once again you ignore my key point about why this hasn't happened yet, or is at least why it is going so slowly: the article is an ideological battlefield, and those of us who are equipped with the knowledge to figure out how to properly document his influences are too often exhausted by WP:BLP violators with ideological motivations. Your motivations happen to be purely bureaucratic. But they are hardly any less demotivating.

You've seen me add documentation of his influences to the article text. Under AGF, when I say I'll continue doing that, you're supposed to believe me. Conformance with the economist infobox guideline will come. Will it come with help from you? I offered to help, you rebuffed the offer. It still stands I very much doubt it. Why not? Because you've shown no evidence of knowing enough to help at all. I've offered you pieces to add (mentioning Stiglitz on your talk page, and Dornbusch on the article Talk page), AND YOU'VE DONE NOTHING ABOUT THESE. You just keep removing well-documented influences under some small-minded interpretation of guidelines as if there were iron-clad, rather than open to exceptions.

So why don't you just get out of my way? Where is your strange insistence on perfection coming from? There are substantial imperfections all through that article! What makes this particular imperfection special -- except that you lack the required knowledge to see all the others, making the only one you can see appear glaring? Yakushima (talk) 15:10, 22 December 2011 (UTC)