Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:50, 31 October 2009

Are you here because I deleted your article? Please read through this first to find out why.

If I left a post on your talk page please answer there, I'll see it, no worries. If you leave a post here, I'll answer here. Now and then I don't think an answer from me is needed. If you wanted one anyway, I'll be happy to get a wee nudge.

Talk archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Main economics article

I am having a real problem with Lawrence Khoo, John Quiggin, and Cretog8, and possibly some others that are reverting because of their perception of weight and fringe... which does not apply anyway in this context of removing information that is sourced and reliably sourced, and pertinent in regard to economics and energy in the Economics article see this revert/diff here and here. These self identified experts are removing this sourced material. They have an editing block that reverts information they consider fringe or less than weighty. This is a recurring problem. This information is hardly fringe... example of the source I gave which they removed.

I also find L.K. going from place to place following my edits in a very unfriendly way such as here.

Here is an example of a discussion with this group concerning this on the Econo Project page, I have tried to edit constructively with those people, and will continue to, but their pov is getting in the way of neutral presentation, in my opinion. skip sievert (talk) 15:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

He just removed sourced information again here, and gave an edit summary of edit warring, which I did not do. There is no reasoning or stopping this person as to editing out any thing he considers un-mainstream. skip sievert (talk) 03:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree 100% with your views about LK.

Cofersan (talk) 13:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It appears that L.K. and J.Q. are just about to chop up or otherwise make alterations to this article also which they site over and over as being a fringe branch of economics, and therefore should be removed from Misplaced Pages as information in other articles also, though this information is well cited and very much mainstream now as in being discussed on all fronts such as here in the N.Y.Times. It seems like an all out effort to mess up information here to a neo classic c.o.i. in my opinion. skip sievert (talk) 19:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hint: Last I heard, CDS liabilities were at way over a quadrillion USD. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Now a member of this group J.Q. is going from article to article related to apparently things he does not like and redirecting them without discussion and in one case citing a false consensus for doing so in his edit summary. This looks to be purely connected with the threesome mentioned above tandem editing negatively against certain information in my opinion. This edit by John Quiggin was reverted he is doing other redirects without discussion also such as here Urbanates here - (another page redirect without discussion) on related topics. This user it is noted is wikihounding information related to these article subjects elsewhere also... note here on that subject from Economics project page. - skip sievert (talk) 04:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages Signpost: 26 October 2009

• Interview: Interview with John Blossom
• News and notes: New hires, German Wikipedian dies, new book tool, and more
• In the news: Editor profiled in Washington Post, Wikia magazines, and more
• Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
• Features and admins: Approved this week
• Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Economics article

You are not behaving like an unbiased admin. This is the second time you have left an unwarranted warning on my talk page. You still have not retracted your first mistaken accusation, when I have pointed out to you how you were mistaken. This is an issue that you obviously have a personal stake in.

What is happening at the economics article is that one extremely tenacious editor is constantly inserting a fringe theory against the consensus of the members of the economics wikiproject. I am merely removing (as other project member have done) this insertion against consensus, that is essentially an edit war by this one editor against consensus.

And now you walk in and leave a warning on my page, and leave no warning on Skip's talk page, when he has reintroduced this exact same material several times in a row (many more times than I have removed it), against the consensus of several other people from the ECON wikiproject. And then, you enable him by reverting to his inclusion of a fringe theory on the main Economics talk page.

How is the even remotely justified? I am interested in how you can justify your actions.

LK (talk) 05:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

LK, please take careful heed, I've never used the admin bit on this and haven't planned on it, my comments should be taken as those of a watching editor who happens to be an admin, who has been asked to speak up about this now and then. I understand my own CoI on this topic but as I've said many times, I don't think you understand your own. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I should say again, WP:Fringe is not policy, it's but a guideline (and a sloppy one at that, often cited mistakenly or worse). Meanwhile, WP:Consensus is not a WP:Vote and project teams are only social groupings covered by guidelines. They are not meant as gatherings for tag-team edit wars or "content patrols," though they can and do rot into such behaviour. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hear, hear!

SpamGuard (talk) 13:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

As admin you don't get to choose which policies and guidelines to enforce and which to ignore. You have the faith of the community because you are supposed to enforce all policies and guidelines fairly and impartially. Just because you don't agree with a guideline does not mean that community consensus that it is a guideline is negated. Fringe is a guideline, and I'm acting by it. Your opinion that it is not a good guideline does not give you leave to ignore it and the fact that I am obeying it.

Also, If you want to interact as a non-admin, don't leave admin-like warnings like "please stop edit warring" on other's talk pages. Or make it clear that you are acting as non-admin, by prefacing you warnings with, "speaking as a non-admin". LK (talk) 14:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to note, the last two people to comment on this talk page before me, SpamGuard and Confersan, have as their first (and only) edits, the comments they left on this page, and are likely sockpuppets. LK (talk) 14:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I asked you to stop edit warring. Anyone can do that, even an admin. As for WP:Fringe, as I've told you many times, it's not policy. Lastly, as I've also told you, I've not used the admin bit on this and haven't yet made plans to do so. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:Fringe is a guideline. From WP:POLICY, "... editors are expected to abide by the principles laid down in policies and guidelines, ..."

'Haven't made plans to use admin powers' is a very different from 'warning as user to user'. So just to clarify, the warnings you have left me are just 'user to user'? LK (talk) 15:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Policies and guidelines are not the same things. I asked you to stop edit warring. I didn't think of it as a warning, but I guess you can take it that way if you like. Edit warring isn't allowed. The pith is, since you asked, I think you're wikilawyering, gaming and edit warring, skirting consensus and verifiability towards your own PoV, behind which you have a conflict of interest, hoping for something which, from the outlook of WP:NPOV, would spin up into an unencyclopedic outcome outside the policies of this website. Time will out, but if editors keep asking me about this I'll keep saying what I think about it. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

So, to sum up, you left a message on my talk page that said that I am edit warring, a message that I can take as a warning. Also, you believe that I am also guilty of various other infractions. Additionally, you feel that it is necessary to observe policy, but not guidelines. You also don't feel that it is neccesary to separate your actions into 'admin' vs 'non-admin', since I have asked several times if your actions are as admin or not, and you have not answered. Am I correct in this summary of your position? LK (talk) 17:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

No. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Can you clarify? I would just like to be clear what your position is. What my 'take-away' from this conversation should be. LK (talk) 17:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I've been straightforward enough already. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Then I can only go away with the conclusion I've already stated above. LK (talk) 13:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't bother doing that since you'll be mistaken. The truth is, I think you've understood what I've said and are only trying to box me in with wikilawyering. In itself, I don't think that's a worry but I won't be drawn into it. If you'll kindly at least think about what I've said, that'll be cool, if you can heed some of it, wonderful. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) It would also be cool and good if you would also consider the source of some of your feelings in this matter. Why are you essentially aiding and abetting a notorious POV pusher who has done much to waste the time and efforts of other editors, and who essentially has started a fight with the whole of Wikiproject Econ? Why do you have such negative feelings about me, when I've done nothing to even warrant a posting at ANI? I'm here to improve economics articles. By improve them, I mean the same thing as what a Britannica editor would, which is to make them reflect (with appropriate weight) reliable sources from academia and beyond as appropriate. This is my POV. I fully and unapologetically admit to this. If I were here to promote my viewpoint and interests, I would insert blurbs about georgism into every article I edit, and reinterpret everything as related to georgist thought. As far as I know, I have not done this even once. LK (talk) 04:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'll here inject a specific point of logic, a general empirical point, and then a specific empirical datum:
  1. There is a difference between not injecting all aspects of one's point of view and not injecting any aspects of one's point of view.
  2. Few if any people inject all aspects of their point of view into any specific act of expression.
  3. About Henry George, you asserted

     apart from some presentational issues, his contributions to Economic Thought have just not been that significant. His observation that a tax on land is in many senses the 'best' tax, is an application of standard economic theory, not an extension of it. Likewise, his observation about monopolies, and the profits and concentration of wealth that accrue from such. His argument that business cycles are brought on by fluctuations in land prices is contradicted by modern experience.

—SlamDiego_←T 07:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You left out:

Henry George was a great man, and in his own terms, a great economist. ... I say all this as a supporter of Henry George, who largely agrees with his positions, and who would love to see most taxes replaced by a land and natural resource use tax. I think he was right about many things

222.166.160.55 (talk) 13:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I left that out because Lawrencekhoo had plainly stipulated that he were a Georgist, towards the end of arguing that his edits to Misplaced Pages articles did not reflect his PoV. The quotation that I present shows that, when it comes to actual economics, what he regards as “mainstream” is quite in harmony with his particular variety of Georgism. (More traditional Georgism, which still has it followers, uses pre-marginalist economics.) Pushing a “mainstream” PoV is neither neutral nor somehow in conflict with his Georgism. —SlamDiego_←T 16:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I might add that all egotists and sociopaths believe THEIR version of "reality" IS reality. LK is (I hate to say this) the closest thing to a human weasel I have witnessed on WP (aside from Zenwhat). He openly, scornfully, dismissively denigrates Austrianism on his own talk page here, then theatrically issues an apology for his own obvious, ignorant bias here, but keeps aggressively editing and accusing OTHERS of POV pushing and trying to ban them! It's like watching a spoilt child slowly (ever so slowly) trying to grow up (seeing disdain slowly turn to a limited amateurish admiration for a school he previously knew NOTHING ABOUT), all the while editing away in complete ignorance of his arrogance and his illiteracy in the areas he chooses to graffiti. It's a bit rich to be complaining about an admin's "bias" after what LK has done on AS - OPENLY denigrating the School, and yet repeatedly attacking other editors and editing the page again and again - like he is some kind of authority! This is maddening when real editors like skip, vision thing, dickclarke, misessus and others have been brushed aside by this guy's clumsy editing, whilst he quickly and pathetically tries to self-educate himself on stuff these guys ALREADY know backwards. It's like watching him slowly become a social pariah in the deep pools he tries to swim in, bumping up against more talented editors, resenting the fact that they are showing him up, and then trying to get them banned to "get back" at them for their insolence against an "Ivy Leaguer". A PhD in a narrow field of mainstream economics is now (1) a distinctly bad career move (who else other than a second-rate university would want you now?) (2) no guarantee of expertise in ANY heterodox field (actually it's a strong sign they should edit very judiciously in these areas) (3) an indicator that you should stick with editing mainstream economics pages (which ironically NONE of the mainstreamers have done - neo-Keynesian economics is still a pathetic joke, as is new Keynesianism, monetarism, mainstream economics, business cycles and many other pages). I can't live long enough to have these arrogant idiots grow up. Neither can Skip, neither could the now-departed Misessus. That WP tolerates these idiots shows the dead heart of mainstream economics, the power of cliques over talent and the inability to circumvent the relentless determination of absolute *ssholes. - ParasitesKillTheirHosts (talk) 11:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Ludvikus revisited

Hello, Gwen Gale. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have an interest in adding your comments. The thread is User:Ludvikus revisited. Thank you. --Ludvikus (talk) 04:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

NPOV in BLP (forum question)

If there is an NPOV issue with a BLP (that cannot be resolved on the talk page) ... would WP:BLPN be the appropriate place to address it (rather than WP:NPOV) or ... ? Proofreader77 (talk) 02:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, very much so. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. (That should be obvious, but it seems nothing is obvious to me ... anymore. lol Thought I'd better check.) Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk) 03:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Your conduct is being tangentially challenged at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Attacks at AfD. (I have not been party to the discussion.) —SlamDiego_←T 02:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)