User talk:Xerographica/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Disambiguation link notification for January 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Fatal Conceit, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Law (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2013

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. 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. S. Rich (talk) 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. --Xerographica (talk) 19:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Please stop using talk pages such as Wikipedia talk:Competence is required for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. 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.) S. Rich (talk) 20:04, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Please do not remove content from talk pages that are not your own. --Xerographica (talk) 20:07, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Please stop using talk pages such as Talk:Tax for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. In this edit, [1], you do not simply say you were blocked, but you add this link -- "I was blocked for a week" -- 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 WP:Essay talk page that addresses an entirely different topic is disruptive. S. Rich (talk) 23:39, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Economics#Preference_revelation.2C_club_theory_and_benefit_principle. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. With this edit [2] 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 Wikipedia? 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. S. Rich (talk) 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. --Xerographica (talk) 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." Wikipedia 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 WP:GNOME. And competence -- to add to the value of Wikipedia 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.--S. Rich (talk) 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. --Xerographica (talk) 01:16, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Public choice

Do you have any objection to merging your new category into Category:Public choice theory? If you do, please say something about the difference on the category pages. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The category should be "Public choice" rather than "Public choice theory". --Xerographica (talk) 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 Category:Public choice theory to Category:Public choice once the article is moved. I lean toward Public choice theory per WP:PRECISE, but I'm not going to weigh in on the article move request or the category move request. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 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 WP:OWN. 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 (here, at AFD) 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 WP:OWN. 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. Stalwart111 13:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

That's not what I was blocked for though. Also, Wikipedia competence policy 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? --Xerographica (talk) 18:42, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The problem is, WP:Competence is not a policy or even a guideline - 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 WP:Economics is a free-for-all or WP:Competence not required 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 verified by reliable sources - so knowing something, believing something or having experienced something are all uncitable as sources. I can't say, "my mate Xerographica 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. Stalwart111 20:26, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that it's a problem that the competence requirement is not a Wikipedia policy. What is Wikipedia 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 tax entry? I'd really love that...then you can decide for yourself whether there's a problem with Rubin's behavior. --Xerographica (talk) 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 WP:OWN, WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL (something even the essay notes) and the idea that WP is something "everyone can edit". That's not, "everyone can edit, provided they are qualified". 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 hear those things or not is up to you. Admins will care little for your content dispute if you try to "resolve" the problem with personal attacks. Stalwart111 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 Wikipedia 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. --Xerographica (talk) 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. Stalwart111 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 Wikipedia 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? --Xerographica (talk) 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. Stalwart111 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 Wikipedia's content. --Xerographica (talk) 23:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The section of WP:OWN I referred to was this one which cross-references WP:NPA - 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, the what is section of NPA 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. Stalwart111 00:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

When the article's content is completely removed...actions speak louder than words, put your money where your mouth is, government success, concentrated benefits and diffuse costs...maybe even tax choice...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. --Xerographica (talk) 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. Stalwart111 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 Wikipedia 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. --Xerographica (talk) 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 Dispute Resolution policy expands on that point too, with WP:FOC). But also becuase it's a policy and that's what we have WP:VPP 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. Stalwart111 02:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Again, as other editors point out how your comments are improperly directed towards Rubin and myself, you respond with this remark [3] 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 scare quotes 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?" S. Rich (talk) 05:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)05:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you make personal attacks on other people, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. This remark -- [4] -- 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. S. Rich (talk) 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. --Xerographica (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked 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 WP:OWN and WP:POINT behavior. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Orange Mike | Talk 17:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

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 (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Xerographica (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

According to WP:BURDEN...

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 here, here and here to provide a reliable source that supports directing concentrated benefits and diffuse costs to tragedy of the commons. They have chosen not to do so.

In the process...I've learned that it's a personal attack to say that...

1. an editor is destroying value
2. 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 personal attack entry 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 talk page? I think I've shown Good Faith in wanting to learn about what behavior...is...or isn't acceptable. --Xerographica (talk) 18:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

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. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:30, 8 January 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.

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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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. --Xerographica (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Start with WP:Dispute resolution and continue from there. You've been told this repeatedly. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 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? --Xerographica (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Why would Orange Mike take it to DR? He has no iron in this specific fire. He saw WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:NPA 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 (✉→BWilkins←✎) 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...tax choice has been nominated for deletion by Rubin. If it was deleted...would that tear down Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia because the editors are friendly...they should join Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia policy like a preacher can recite the Bible...but only one other editor knew of the notability 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. --Xerographica (talk) 12:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia is not the place for them, as they're used to peer-reviewed journals and a certain type of synthesis and "unique and ground-breaking topics" that is the exact opposite of what Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 (✉→BWilkins←✎) 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 Obama to Santa Claus. 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. --Xerographica (talk) 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 WP:PRESERVE. So, you tell me - should I delete it completely, or can it live how it is until someone creates an article that meets Wikipedia's requirements? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 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 Wikipedia...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 tax choice. Who's going to make the monumental effort to dig through all the RS on the tax choice entry? --Xerographica (talk) 21:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC) Modified by request --Xerographica (talk) 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 WP:BATTLE 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 (✉→BWilkins←✎) 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 partial knowledge. --Xerographica (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, Xerographica, you misunderstand what or how reliable sources 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 WP:CCPOL 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 WP:COMMON 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. --S. Rich (talk) 22:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

NOINDEX template

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that your user subpage at User talk:Xerographica may not be appropriate to be indexed 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 policies and guidelines. I have tagged this page as __NOINDEX__, which allows editing but minimizes the page's inclusion in search engine results.

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 {{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 Wikipedia guidelines, or you can edit it as normal and ignore the tag completely (it will not affect editing).

However, please do not remove the tag without discussion. Thank you. --S. Rich (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Please copy and paste the specific policy that you feel that my user page is in violation of. --Xerographica (talk) 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 {{db-userreq}} to the top of this page and an administrator will review it. -S. Rich (talk) 00:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Please be more specific. "Material in development" is the very definition of Wikipedia. --Xerographica (talk) 02:33, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you can create userspace drafts, 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 WP:FAKEARTICLE). My main user page, 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 User talk:Xerographica/Preference revelation 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: Wikipedia:Userfication. Stalwart111 03:14, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

The term applies to userspace drafts such as sandbox or other draft-type work. In this case, WP:UPNO 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. --S. Rich (talk) 03:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

|}

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 removed content from the entry on demonstrated preference

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... Why markets do not fail. Buchanan on voluntary cooperation and externalities. Once you've read that...then please read Ginsburg's and Wright's paper...Behavioral Law and Economics: Its Origins, Fatal Flaws, and Implications for Liberty. Then, and only then, can we have a constructive discussion, based on RS, on how to improve this entry. --Xerographica (talk) 17:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

15 Jan: Specifico makes the same edit 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. --Xerographica (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. 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 WP:STICK. You are only beating yourself with it. S. Rich (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Do his edits reflect what the reliable sources say about the concept? --Xerographica (talk) 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.--S. Rich (talk) 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 manual of style stuff like moving a bare link to an inline citation and adding a linkfarm tag. I wonder if you meant this edit, before it, that actually removed some content? For content disputes (which is what this would be without the PAs), you could start a request for comment on the article talk page. That way, WP:CONSENSUS can be developed for the inclusion/exclusion of particular material and sources can be fully examined. Stalwart111 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? --Xerographica (talk) 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 - WP:RFC. 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 WP:AFD). But I would again caution that these decisions are based on WP:CONSENSUS (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 reliable sources to support what you would like to include in the article. www.daviddfriedman.com, for example, is clearly self-published 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 get it. 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 Wikipedia, not Wikinomics, yeah? Stalwart111 01:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

That said, we do have Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics (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 what you want to say but you're hitting a wall of opposing editors because of how 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. Stalwart111 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. --S. Rich (talk) 03:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Stalwart, what you posted on my page, is what should have been posted on the demonstrated preference 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 David D. Friedman...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 concentrated benefits and diffuse costs 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. --Xerographica (talk) 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 WP:FOC... Stalwart111 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 [5] on WorldCat. He's got stuff published by the University of Princeton. Use * {{cite book}} 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. --S. Rich (talk) 07:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Technically, David Friedman being a recognized expert, his home page is usable, except in WP:BLP contexts. But books would be better. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 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.'''SPECIFICO''' (talk) 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? --Xerographica (talk) 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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)

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? --Xerographica (talk) 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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)

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. --Xerographica (talk) 21:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

• 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 WP:RS, 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 Twitter or Facebook. 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 William Williams Keen. 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 Wall Street Journal 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 Price-based selling or even Classified advertising. 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. Stalwart111 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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)

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. - David D. Friedman, How Economists Think

--Xerographica (talk) 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? --Xerographica (talk) 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 WP:OR sun, or just find a better Friedman example.

On the website - we need to be careful of textbooks. There can often be some WP:HOWTO 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, plenty of his books 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. Stalwart111 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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)

SPECIFICO, the article on revealed preference 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. --Xerographica (talk) 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 actions speak louder than words. 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 opportunity cost concept.

Let's try a practical example. I can say, "what would really help get you up to speed is this excellent historical perspective on public goods." 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 put your money where your mouth is. 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 free-rider problem. 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 preference revelation problem.

Samuelson based his revealed preference 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. - James M. Buchanan, Order Defined in the Process of its Emergence

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, The Dark Side of Choice

...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. --Xerographica (talk) 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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. "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. S. Rich (talk) 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. --S. Rich (talk) 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) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPECIFICO (talk • contribs)

Crux of the problem?

The crux of problem as I see it (stripping it back to bare bones) is that you 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 notable 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 Wikipedia 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 synthed together 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 Wikipedia 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. Stalwart111 03:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Deja vu...here's what Rich wrote above (Word to the wise)...

Same idea applies with Concentrated benefits and diffuse costs. 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 special interests.) 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 WP:SYN.

Rubin nominated the article for deletion and it was redirected to tragedy of the commons. Afterwards, an economics professor posted a section on Bwilkins's talk page asking why the notable concept was removed from Wikipedia.

The very idea of Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 the reliable source that I highly recommended that you read? --Xerographica (talk) 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 original research 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 WP:N. And they won't help at AFD. Wikipedia, essentially, is about the distribution of verifiable 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 WP:SKATE), 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. Stalwart111 08:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Is Platycerium superbum 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 Platycerium superbum and Platycerium grande 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 division of labor. 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 Wikipedia. From the entry of the founder of Wikipedia...Jimmy Wales...

Wales cites Austrian School economist Friedrich Hayek's essay "The Use of Knowledge in Society", which he read as an undergraduate, as "central" to his thinking about "how to manage the Wikipedia project". Hayek argued that information is decentralized – 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 Wikipedia? Here's the essay right here...The Use of Knowledge in Society. There's absolutely no cost to read it. However, there is an opportunity cost. 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 Japanese Punk bands 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. --Xerographica (talk) 10:20, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Just for fun, it has indeed been covered in mainstream media (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 Platycerium superbum and Platycerium grande. 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. WP:EXPERT 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, WP:WINARS), 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... Stalwart111 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...The influence of Knut Wicksell on Richard Musgrave and James Buchanan by Bernd Hansjürgens. Go to the Wikipedia entry that I created for the benefit principle 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 club theory. 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 opportunity cost. 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 Wikipedia. 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 worth the sacrifice of my time to protest. --Xerographica (talk) 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 like 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". Stalwart111 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 where the lines are. 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 concentrated benefits and diffuse costs. It's ridiculous that it redirects to tragedy of the commons. 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 public choice. 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. --Xerographica (talk) 23:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

They most certainly are not. But for fun, challenge accepted; take a look at Platycerium superbum 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 own goal. 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 was 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. Ever. 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" [move to talk page] instead of "you don't know how to read RS" [blocked]. A simple change in prose will see you move on from all of this fairly quickly, I think. Stalwart111 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. Wikipedia 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 explain to SPECIFICO that Wikipedia is not a dictionary...

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 preference revelation.

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 Wikipedia 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 other people's money 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. --Xerographica (talk) 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 knitting or wind surfing. But I don't think you need a mentor for that - it's entirely up to you. Stalwart111 22:54, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

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?"

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.

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. --Xerographica (talk) 04:17, 21 January 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. Stalwart111 04:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

"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)

The vandalism on opportunity cost has been fixed. You are right, one of the 128 page watchers should have noticed. Thanks for pointing it out.--S. Rich (talk) 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)

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. --Xerographica (talk) 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...Human Action...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 The Fatal Conceit...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...

--Xerographica (talk) 22:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)