Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:19, 3 April 2010

/archive1 /archive2

Artyom Shneyerov minor edits

Hello John,

You did a good job removing all these categories (game theory, IO, etc.). They are indeed inappropriate given the content of the page. Whoever put them there should have known better :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.201.30.66 (talk) 00:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Junk science: Cato, Thacker and junk

Hello John. Your recent addition about the Cato Institute and its relation to junkscience.com helps the article become more factual. Is there any chance of a reference for this? EdJohnston 21:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a bit tricky. There was no public announcement of his departure, though it's easy enough to check that he was associated with Cato until the article came out, and departed not long after. I noted his going in my blog as did various other bloggers, and the same facts are reported in a little more detail in both the Cato Institute and Steven Milloy articles. Thanks for your work on this article, which has been helpful. JQ 05:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

FYI: iNic at the article on the St. Petersburg paradox

Possibly of interest to you:

• User talk:Luna Santin#Problem brewing at St. Petersburg paradox

—SlamDiego22:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Categories

John, thanks for the implicit tips in category usage on exponential utility. Sorry for the back-and-forth. Cheers, Jeremy Tobacman 01:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

No problems. It's a nice article. If you're interested in categorising economics articles, check out JEL classification codes JQ 02:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Autoblock

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock of 130.102.0.178 lifted or expired. Sorry for the trouble! Request handled by: – Luna Santin (talk) 23:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Revert, or deletion?

Hi, John. Without prejudice to the issue of whether you should have made that deletion, I just wanted to let you know that your edit summary was ambiguous. It makes it appear that I was the deleter, and you were reverting my deletion. I refer to:

• rv large-scale deletion ←Undid revision 115927315 by Ed Poor

I guess you meant that you were making a large deletion. (Not that large, really, just 80 words. But at some point you might want to say why you deleted it. Doesn't it give an example of scientific evidence that secondhand smoke is dangerous? --Uncle Ed 03:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Apologies on this one. I misread your change as deleting what was there before. I've reverted to your edit.JQ 03:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I had to stare at the diff for a minute myself, before I saw the paragraph break. For an anxious moment, I thought I had accidentally overwritten the previous ref! :-) Well, now I really must return to the meat world. Good night. --Uncle Ed 03:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Global warming conspiracy theory

An editor has nominated Global warming conspiracy theory, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Global warming conspiracy theory and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 15:35, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock of 130.102.0.178 lifted or expired. Request handled by: WinHunter 05:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Break after userbox

"I've created categories that match the main ones in JEL classification codes, namely Category:Cooperative game, Category:Non-cooperative games,Category:Evolutionary game theory and Category:Bargaining theory. It would be great if someone could take an hour or two to categorize the large number of articles currently under Category:Game theory into these subcategories. PS, I don't know how to get a line break after the userbox. Help appreciated!JQ 06:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)"

Not sure if you meant userboxes on your userpage or not, but you can put a line break in a box by inserting |- in a line in between the lines your userboxes are on. Please see my userpage for an example if that is what you meant. Thanks! Muchris 15:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Changed my vote on Global Warming Conspiracy

Fine job you did on improving the article. Thanks! Noroton 23:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pushing me to do the necessary work! I tend to take words like "fraud" literally, but I was impressed by your point that, a lot of the time, this is just rhetorical overkill. I've added to the intro a sentence saying "In particular instances, it may be difficult to determine whether claims of a "hoax" or "fraud" are intended as serious accusations of concerted dishonesty, or as rhetorical flourishes, intended to emphasise a claim that proponents of anthropogenic global warming theory are in error." Not perfectly worded, and needs a supporting citation if I can find one, but it does respond to your point. Frustrating as it can be the Misplaced Pages process does work pretty well.JQ 00:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Spelling of Gerschenkron effect

I think that might be Gerschenkron effect, as in Alexander Gerschenkron, not Gershchenkron effect, a misspelling.

p.s. Please archive your talk page. Some of us are on slow connections. --SueHay 02:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you've right. I didn't check the spelling, just fixed the categories. I'm moving stuff to archives, and will do more.JQ 10:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Photo

It looks like giving permission for a photo "for Misplaced Pages use only" is no longer sufficient to allow it to be included in Misplaced Pages - unless it's also deemed to be "fair use" for some independent reason, and Misplaced Pages:Fair use is contradictory on whether a photo of a person for identification purposes is fair use. Seems like a very bizarre policy! In general, Misplaced Pages encourages image contributors to license their own work under a free license which has to be free enough to allow derivative works and commercial use. If you would be willing to so license one of them (e.g. the last photo in the set) I could include it with no difficulty. You can change the license field on Flickr by going to the specific photo page, and clicking "edit" next to All Rights Reserved, which is on the right under "Additional information".—greenrd 09:25, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this info. I've set my default license to Attr:Non-commercial:sharealike, but I've made the last photo just "Attribution", which should be enough.JQ 09:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

WPs influence

Hey, I have a question about our previous discussion at the AfD for Arrovian uncertainty. You mentioned that WP seemed to be a part of why the term might grow in popularity, and as an ultimate source for some of the GS references. Is this a "bad thing" (not sure, but I think it might be) and is it likely (I think it isn't)? Now that WP is trying to cite more and more, it doesn't seem like it will need to be a reference for scholarly articles, as it is possible to trace the ideas to their originators. Anyway, is it then more responsible not to mention both uncertainties in the Knightian uncertainty article, which would give undue weight to a rarely used term? I was going to put in a sentence in Knightian, but then I realized what you meant, and figured I'd hold off. BTW, GB has another book mentioning the term (with reference, Rosenberg. "Uncertainty and Technological Change" (1996) ...) that I didn't see last time. Smmurphy 05:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm on holiday at the moment, but I'll come back to this next week.JQ 21:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Duffy and Counterpoint

Hi John,

I see that you have started the page on the ABC Radio National's Right-wing Libertarian Hour. Take a look at this example of an informal fallacy appearing on said programme. I documented approprimately 5 fallacies in the same segment about public transport including your garden variety ad hominems and association fallacies. There is enough material there to start the page List of informal fallacies appearing on Counterpoint. Grumpyyoungman01 10:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Grumpy. I share your view, but I want to stick to an NPOV presentation of the facts. I'll try and list some of Duffy's guests and arguments when I get some time. I started the page because I wanted to link to Duffy's endorsement of The Great Global Warming Swindle, whic I've criticised.JQ 11:59, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Center for Security Policy

Looks like the Center for Security Policy found their article and made into PR. Leafyplant 03:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Money

Dear Professor Quiggin,

Thank you very much for taking interest in improving the article money. As I see most of your edits concentrate on the organization of the article, I just wanted to make sure you are aware that due to the article being subject to a larger improvement drive this week, the organization of sections and similar aspects of the article are likely to be changed many times in due course, so much of your work could be, in a way, lost. I believe at this early moment, it might be more beneficial to focus on adding references to reliable sources to information contained in the article (as well as new information, preferably referenced), as those will, most probably, not be removed from the article, perhaps only rearranged.

Thank you very much for your involvement again and I am looking forward to more of your valuable contributions to the article.

Kind regards,

PrinceGloria 23:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I'll look at improvements of this kind first. I hope the improvement drive goes well. JQ 09:46, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Astroturfing

I am about to undo your undo of my revision re: TCS Daily, Heritage and Cato.The paragraph is nearly incomprehensible, it's quoted entirely from another source, and most importantly, those are think tanks. See the Astroturfing Talk page here. --Loudon clear 12:53, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I've reinserted without the reference to TCS (though this is an astroturf outfit - a lobbying firm disgusied as a discussion forum), Heritage and Cato. I agree it needs cleanup and will try to tackle this. JQ 03:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Types of money

I see you removed the entire types of money section as redundant - I'd like to put it back but would like discussion first - please see the Money talk page Egfrank 03:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Misreading "decades old"

Re your edit summary here: I don't think you misread. UBeR corrected himself. --Stephan Schulz 09:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Tricky!JQ 09:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

utterly unreliable

Since I am not in the habit of relying upon authority, they also don't become unreliable, when mistakes are uncovered. Whether they are right or wrong on any given point is based on the evidence. I trust McKitrick far more than Mann, because one was willing to open his work to scrutiny and the other was CYAing all the way. Are we to totally dismiss the summary work of the IPCC because they have deceptively used model attribution and projection that they know is inappropriate? Issues of integrity like this, certainly demand high levels of scrutiny and suspicion when reviewing their other work.--Africangenesis 18:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Enumerative induction

Hi John,

The activities of your one-editor fan club continue apace. See Enumerative induction. - Grumpyyoungman01 00:57, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It's a nice illustration. JQ 09:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikibreak

I'm going to be on wikibreak for a few weeks while I catch up with various things.JQ 05:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The Greenhouse Conspiracy

AfD nomination of The Greenhouse Conspiracy

I've nominated The Greenhouse Conspiracy, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that The Greenhouse Conspiracy satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and the Misplaced Pages deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/The Greenhouse Conspiracy and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of The Greenhouse Conspiracy during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. --Kim D. Petersen 16:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

See this is what happens on Misplaced Pages JQ, as soon as you take a wikibreak, every Tom, Dick and Harry takes advantage of you. - Grumpyyoungman01 23:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Rachel Carson

Hi. I've been a fan of your edits since I first got interested in wikipedia. Anyway, the Rachel Carson page currently under attack by the "rachel carson killed more people than hilter" POV pushers (IMHO). I could use your help! Yilloslime 20:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for the kind words. I've added a subsection on the timely revelation that the whole thing was a setup by the tobacco industry. You may want to follow the links and develop this. I'll keep a general eye on things now, but I don't want to return from my Wikibreak just yet.JQ 08:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Ya I noticed that info when you posted on the AFM page. Great stuff! Yilloslime 14:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Lindzen

Hi John, I only added a tag to that particular quote to see if other editors who work on the article regulary have an alternative weblink (one that doesn't require registration and payment) as I was interested in reading more of the interview. I have googled myself and couldn't find one. I don't doubt the quote itself (that it wasn't made up,) that is why I just added a tag. You're correct that I should have just asked on the talk page. Apologies. --Dean1970 13:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

AFM and PR firm

JQ, not sure what (if anything) to make of this, but I thought I'd bring it to your attention just in case. It looks like AFM's website, www.fightingmalaria.org, (and possibly AFM itself) was originally administrated by a Christopher Klose from the DC based PR company John Adams Associates. The evidence is here at archive.org. Looks like sometime between May 16 and July 21, 2001, AFM wised up and changed the contact email from cklose@johnadams.com to info@fightingmalaria.org. A brief Google search shows that Klose has worked for various PR groups, and also the American Crop Protection Association (now CropLife). It's interesting, but I'm not sure what it might mean. Yilloslime 21:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it looks like Klose has worked for the tobacco companies, specifically the "Smokeless Tobacco Council," but I haven't found any specific info to link him to Roger Bate and the AFM plot to undermine the WHO. Legacy Tobacco Docs search here.Yilloslime 22:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting. I guess we are only seeing the tip of the iceberg, since most of the business would have been done by voice or email. Note that there are multiple bodies, and the website /www.fightingmalaria.org is that of "Save Children from Malaria Campaign", purportedly a joint effort of AFM, CEI and others, but that Tren and Bate have @fightingmalaria.org email addresses.JQ 00:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we're likely only seeing the tip of an iceberg. I just wish I knew how to see the whole thing. I think "Save Children from Malaria" and AFM are essentially the same thing. Checking www.archive.org, it looks like sometime between Jan 19, 2002 and May 25, 2002 the banner at the top of www.fightingmalaria changed from "Save Children from Malaria" to "Africa Fighting Malaria" and the sentence We created this site to educate our visitors about the scourge of Malaria and the effectiveness of the pesticide DDT... was changed to Africa Fighting Malaria is an NGO which seeks to educate people about the scourge of Malaria and the effectiveness of the pesticide DDT... The rest of website is unchanged as far as i can tell, though I haven't crawled through every page. At any rate, given the close connection that Bate, Tren, Milloy, and the rest have to the tobacco industry, it's no surprise that the orginal contact on the fightingmalaria.org website is another guy with ties to the tobacco industry.Yilloslime 01:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

EW

I've blocked the IP address for a while. At least this guy is easy to spot. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages standards do change often always. The standards for biographies of living people get stricter every day. It wouldn't surprise me if the boundaries have shifted to make sites that were previously considered worthwhile to link to, like Sourcewatch, no longer adequate. Jayjg is a respectable, long-time editor so if he removes links I'd presume he's doing so to be consistent with current guidelines and policies. If there's a specific link or instance that you think is questionable let me know. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

There's no "bulk revert" function, but there is a "revert button" which makes the work go quickly. I'll drop a note to Jayjg asking about the links. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Ecological economics - categorisation

Dear Professor Quiggin: Thanks for helping out with categorising ecological economics. I have just categorised it as a Wikiproject: Economics article. I hope that's suitable. Feel free to fix if I got it wrong. Regards, AppleJuggler 05:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

External links

You had the following edit comment on your recent edit to WP:EL:

"delete FA crit - no significant discussion before this radical change came in, no response to criticism of it"

Which is really quite bizarre, as the sentence you removed is NOT a radical change at all, but has been there for years and discussed multiple times on the talk page as a long-standing consensus approved criteria. I see someone beat me to reverting your deletion of it, which should give you a clue about how much broad support that phrase has. Please do not remove it again without forming a firm consensus on the talk page that it should be removed. DreamGuy 20:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to be this version or for example. Can you point me to the discussion when it was introduced.JQ 21:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

NCdave

Hello. Given ongoing developments (or lack of development) at Talk:Steven Milloy, I'm strongly considering opening a request for comment on the conduct of User:NCdave. I find his approach, at this point, to be tendentious in the extreme, and I think that outside input might help move things beyond the impasse at which we seem to be stuck. As I realized when exploring this option, this would not be NCdave's first RfC; that would be found here, having to do with NCdave's tendentious editing on Terri Schiavo. In any case, I would be interested in your thoughts on the subject. MastCell 04:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm inclined to give it another week or so, but if he keeps it up I think an RfC may be necessary. I had hoped he was giving up and going away. Like you I suspect, I'd assumed he was a particularly annoying newbie but I checked his history and found the war over Terri Schiavo. JQ 07:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Author of National Geographic piece on Malaria just got fired...

JQ, I though I'd bring this interesting tidbit to your attention just in case you missed it:

• Michael Finkel wrote this article about malaria for National Geographic which, IMHO, presented pro-DDT anti-Carson POV as fact:

  Malaria is a confounding disease—often, it seems, contradictory to logic. Curing almost all malaria cases can be worse than curing none. Destroying fragile wetlands, in the world of malaria, is a noble act. Rachel Carson, the environmental icon, is a villain; her three-letter devil, DDT, is a savior…"The ban on DDT," says Gwadz of the National Institutes of Health, "may have killed 20 million children."

  On the whole, the article is not nearly as bad as stuff written by Bate or Tren or Milloy, but it's pretty unbalanced in my view. Anyways, Finkel, the author, just got fired by the NYT Magazine for presenting information as factual that wasn't quite.

Found this interesting; thought you would, too. Yilloslime 21:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I'd seen the NYMag piece, but not the news on FinkelJQ 22:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Woops, my bad! It's turns out Finkel was fired back in 2002, not this year as I originally thought. I'm not sure how I made that mistake. It's still interesting, though not as timely. Yilloslime 19:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Link for assessment

Notability of Gio Batta Gori

A tag has been placed on Gio Batta Gori, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Misplaced Pages guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. --ROGER  12:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Junk Science

you reverted a piece on Junk science/ milloy which has two demonstrable errors.

Firstly, Fox News is an established journalistic source. You can't just ignore it because you don't like what it says. If you wish to dispute this further, I am quite happy to include further references to the ORI pages, and Nature pages, where these findings are also reported.

Secondly, you have changed the text about AJPH. The text you have used is demonstrably wrong, and I set out why on the discussion page. Yet again, you have deliberately changed a text to a form where you know that it is wrong.

Peroxisome 10:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Several other editors have already pointed out your error reagrdign Fox News. Rather than violating WP:3RR why don't you read their comments. It's perfectly OK to cite claims made by Fox News, but not to endorse its reports as factually true.JQ 11:14, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Fox News is a reliable source. Milloy is reporting on a finding by others (the ORI, Nature), and this is what reliable sources do. You have changed the text so that it misrepresents what is at issue; that several papers have been found to be fraudulent. Your claim that Fox News reports can not be relied upon for factual accuracy displays a certain bias. In the case in point, it is a ridiculous claim. Peroxisome 11:36, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Further discssion of this issue is at Talk:Steven Milloy, but briefly, the point is that Milloy claims these were examples of "junk science". Yes, they are indisuptably well-known examples of research fraud (and there are many others), but "junk science" is a much more nebulous term which means... whatever one wants it to mean, it seems. Hence, it is appropriate to note that Milloy claims these as examples of "junk science". MastCell 18:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

JEL codes

Thx, John. Your contribution of the JEL codes has so helped keep things straighter than they otherwise could be. BW, Thomasmeeks 00:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thx, John. It's the "doubting" part of me who done it. BW, Thomasmeeks 21:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

religion and global warming

I was peeking at your edit history and noticed this, which prompted me to stop and read Global_warming_controversy#Analogies_by_Skeptics. I'm very tempted to delete the whole section. The Religion subsection cites the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise website and a blog, neither which seem to qualify as Reliable Sources; and the Phlogiston and Miasma subsections aren't notable enough to warrant inclusion. In fact the whole section is of dubious notability. My question to you—someone who I assume has had his eye this ball for a while—is why is this junk in there in the first place? Is this the result of some sort of compromise or consensus? I ask simply because I don't want to reopen a settled debate. Yilloslime 22:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It's up for discussion now, and I think deletion of the entire section is a good option.JQ 05:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Information, knowledge, and uncertainty

Hi John: A few of us have had an extensive discussion about the article on information economics. We seem to have arrived at something of an agreement about what a resulting article should probably look like, but aren't on the same page about what it should be called. More input would be useful, and I thought of you. Most of the recent discussion is here. Would be much obliged if you could have a quick look. Thanks! Jeremy Tobacman 18:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm coming over nowJQ 07:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

NCdave

I have proposed, on the community sanction noticeboard, that NCdave (talk · contribs) be banned from the Steven Milloy article and talk page for long-term disruptive and tendentious editing. As a participant on said article, I am notifying you of the thread. MastCell 22:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi John

Thanks for your comments about merging - I just posted another on the History of economics page, asking whether people thought there was anything that needs to be retained, which isn't already in the new page, and would be happy for you to recommend anything. Also, you are probably quite well suited to help out (to put it mildly) if you have any more comments on the HoET page itself. It'd be good to get it up to scratch, because there are surprisingly few featured pages in the Business and economics category of Misplaced Pages articles. :) Wikidea 13:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration

I have made a request for arbitration regarding the passive smoking article. You are listed as a party in this request. Thanks. Chido6d 04:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Please note that in ArbCom requests, users don't comment in the statements of other users; they have a statement of their own. Per that custom, I have moved your endorsement of MastCell's statement to a new section. I am notifying you since I had to make a slight adjustment to the comment to specify whose statement you were endorsing. Adam 17:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Regulatory Impact Analysis Project

JQ, the hits from my google search imply that the Regulatory Impact Analysis Project is just another front group of Milloy's, but his webpage, and your update to Steven Milloy imply (at least my reading of it) that the Regulatory Impact Analysis Project is/was an official government project. Kinda makes it sound a lot more legit than it probably was... Yilloslime (t) 02:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I think you're right. I did say "According to his website", and that will teach me not to believe anything written there. JQ 03:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Denialism connections

I know you're interested in the substantial overlap between passive-smoking denialism and global warming denialism. So I thought you'd appreciate this edit to passive smoking, which according to WHOIS comes directly from the Chevron Corporation in San Ramon. MastCell 04:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Fascinating. I should try and put some of this material into denialism.

POV accusations

Edits which are relevant to the topic and supported by reliable sources are most proper. You should not make a blanket (and false) POV accusaion simply because you disagree with what a source says or if the source does not agree with your agenda. Focus on the content, not the editor. As far as "consensus", I'm not yet convinced that a small group of activist editors should be able to "bully" the article into one of their own liking. Chido6d 11:37, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Roger Bate

Did you see that Bate has to the revelation (by you and others) of the tobacco documents linking AFM to PM? Yilloslime (t) 17:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Very useful.JQ 23:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I love how the picture that goes with the article is of someone spraying a swamp--I thought they were only talking about IRS! Sloppy. Yilloslime (t) 23:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Your threat

You have threatened to block me, but clearly this user's vanity page has been compromised by his own editing of it, no? Is Misplaced Pages the encyclopedia anyone can edit who agree with a certain cabal of administrators? --71.232.157.145 07:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Margret RoadKnight

Er..., according to the log at Margret RoadKnight, I had nothing to do with its deletion. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I found this but that was probably just deletion of a redirect page.JQ (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

References

Well, Dr. Quiggin, I hope see why putting references in the appropriate places (i.e. after the argument) is helpful--some people will miss it otherwise! Thank you for pointing it out though. ~ UBeR (talk) 02:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

A fair point and I apologise for snarking. But it would be helpful to the project if you did a bit more checking of obvious references before tagging their absence. That way, we only take one edit to make the improvement, and we don't have the annoying tag in the interim.JQ (talk) 02:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Kyoto Protocol ratification

Your recent edit to Politics of global warming claimed that the Clinton administration ratified the Kyoto protocol. I believe that Al Gore signed the protocol, but that it was never ratified. See Politics_of_global_warming#Federal_government and Kyoto_protocol#United_States. Wdfarmer (talk) 10:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

D'oh! You're right of course, and I could have sworn I wrote "signed", but the edit history doesn't lie. Fixed now, thanks. JQ (talk) 10:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

African American Environmentalist Association

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article African American Environmentalist Association, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Misplaced Pages is not" and Misplaced Pages's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of African American Environmentalist Association. TheRingess (talk) 00:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of African American Environmentalist Association

An article that you have been involved in editing, African American Environmentalist Association, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/African American Environmentalist Association. Thank you. TheRingess (talk) 05:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to split DDT into sub articles

There is a proposal to split DDT into several sub-articles. As someone who has contributed regulary to this article, your input would be appreciated. Yilloslime (t) 22:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

1. If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
2. If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Misplaced Pages (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

The above is an extract from WP:WEIGHT.

I don't think you're saying that Driessen is not a prominent adherent or that his pro-DDT views are held by "an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority". Am I detecting your thoughts correctly here?

If so, perhaps we writers at Misplaced Pages should cover both sides of the "anti-malarial use of DDT" controversy, by summarizing (and possibly even detailing) the names, political affiliations (?), and arguments of each side. --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

As I said over at DDT, I think we should do this. The difficulty is to separate the political controversy, largely part of US domestic debate, from debates among those actually dealing with malaria.JQ (talk) 20:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with both of you (If I understand your positions correctly): DDT can and should cover the controversy over DDT use in IRS. And I don't think the views of Driessen (or others with similar opinions) have been excluded in article—Driessen is already specifically mentioned, as are Steven Milloy, Roger Bate, Africa Fighting Malaria, and others, and their arguments are well represented, if not always attributed clearly. I think it would be fabulous if we could have an article that clearly delineates what the scientific literature says, what the WHO and other governmental and intergovernmental bodies say, what the arguments of the environmentalists are, and what the arguments of the likes of Driessen and Bate are. I think that would be great, but I also have to agree with JQ that it's going to be difficult to separate all these things out, especially with respect to WP:WEIGHT. For example, how seriously does the scientific community take are the views of Bate, Milloy, Don Roberts, or J Gordon Edwards? How seriously are their views taken in other circles? How relavant are these other circles to this article? All this has bearing on how much WP:WEIGHT we give their views (obviously—I know you guys know this), but I don't think teasing this appart is going to be easy. Given the paucity of actual contributions to the scientific literature by these guys (the notable exception being DOn Roberts) I think we can safely say they aren't taken very seriously in that circle. But their influence on policy and the public more generally is (for me at least) much harder to quantify, and regardless of how much influence they've had, the question still looms as to how much space to accord the public perception of DDT and IRS vis a vis the scientific perception. Yilloslime (t) 23:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Brisbane Ladies

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

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

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 00:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Brisbane meetup

	Brisbane Meetup v t e Next: To be decided (watch) Last: Saturday 13 January 2018
See also: Australian events listed at Wikimedia.org.au (or on Facebook)

Delivered on behalf of Dihydrogen Monoxide. Giggabot (talk) 14:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Data Quality Act Shinanigans

Hi John, I'm thinking this might be of interest to you and your blog, though I'm contacting you here simply because it's the easiest way for me. Anyways, did you happen to see this letter in the January 11th issue of Science by William G. Kelly Jr. of the Center for Regulatory Effectiveness? In it he claims that "Neither Phillip Morris (a multiproduct company) nor any other tobacco company (or nontobacco company for that matter) played a leadership role in the genesis of the DQA." Interestingly, he then goes on to say that "While working with the Center for Regulatory Effectiveness in Washington, DC, I was personally involved with the development of the DQA." You may, of course, recognize the Center for Regulatory Effectiveness as the "watchdog group" founded by the legendary Phillip Morris lobbyist Jim Tozzi.... Yilloslime (t) 17:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the key words are probably "leadership role". In the current political milieu, it's not necessary for industry to play a leadership role in gutting regulation (that's the EPA's job). Of course, as you point out, the letter also seems to position the CRE as somehow independent of industry. MastCell 18:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough: PM and other corporations didn't play "leadership roles" themselves, they simply set up and/or funded front groups and lobbyists who then played the leadership roles. Yilloslime (t) 18:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, but at a glance that may be the operative semantic dodge being employed. MastCell 19:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It certainly looks to be a classic non-denial denial. I'll try and write a blog post when I get some time (travelling at present). JQ (talk) 15:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

PS Could you send me the text of the letter at---. I don't have easy access to Science at present.15:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Just sent it...Yilloslime (t) 01:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Not that it should come as a surprise, but the US Lobby Disclosure Page shows that Kelly was a lobbyist with Multinational Business Services from 1998-2003, representing mostly agrichemical companies. (MBS is Jim Tozzi's firm.) See this list—Kelly is listed at "William G Kelly, Jr." on some, but not all, forms. Clearly, its the same guy that wrote the Science letter. Yilloslime (t) 19:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Category for Merge

The related Category:Ozone hole skeptics has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for Discussion page.

--RedShiftPA (talk) 04:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Template:User degree/BEc

A tag has been placed on Template:User degree/BEc requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Passive smoking

Hi John - I hope you don't mind, but I removed from Talk:Passive smoking both the off-topic comment by 159.105.80.141 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) as well as your brief and reasonable response. This particular IP editor has a long and storied history of endless general debate and argumentation on talk pages, centering around Holocaust denialism, AIDS denialism, and the like. I've actually blocked him for remarkably persistent talk page abuse in the past. Currently I'm thinking that the best approach is just to remove any posts from him which clearly abuse article talk pages, and leave any which suggest specific or concrete improvements to said articles, in an effort to improve the situation. Anyhow, a long-winded explanation in case you were wondering why I did what I did there. MastCell  21:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. I checked his talk page after replying and realised I'd given the benefit of the doubt to a troll.JQ (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Eh, always better to err in that direction. If not for my long experience with this editor, I'd have done the same. MastCell  23:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Unrelated topic: thanks for rewriting the passive smoking section to remove POV and put it more in accordance with verifiable sources :) --Enric Naval (talk) 14:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

And thanks again for your suggestions JQ (talk) 20:47, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

nice find...

"There is only one possible conclusion: an antismoking operative is in control of the tobacco issue – probably planted there by some pharmaceutical-funded antismoking gang." Is it you? It's not me, but I could sure use the money... Yilloslime (t) 04:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

My guess is that it's Chido6d acting as an agent provocateur. Those pharmaceutical-funded antismoking gangs are pretty wily. JQ (talk) 04:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

I do like how the only possible reason that someone could think smoking is a bad idea is because they are being handsomely paid by the drug industry. Of course, an interest in accurately representing scientific opinion, or even a concern for public health, could not possibly be at play - the one possible conclusion is that the drug industry offered us more than the tobacco industry to edit Misplaced Pages. Perhaps Freud had the right idea.

As usual, even these supposed economic incentives are ridiculously nonsensical and ignorant. A single dose of pemetrexed, docetaxel, or (especially) bevacizumab for lung cancer, or a course of abciximab, a drug-eluting stent, and a lifetime of atorvastatin and clopidogrel for a heart attack, bring in much more money than a few nicotine patches. It's in the pharmaceutical industry's financial interest to keep people smoking, and keep them developing all of the complications for which they produce expensive drugs. But then, rationality is generally not a conspicuous characteristic of half-baked astroturfed conspiracism, is it? MastCell  04:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat relatedly, there's a nice new nugget over at Lambert's blog: Just how many astroturf groups did tobacco fund?. Yilloslime (t) 04:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Fortune Global 500

Hi, I'm not sure who to contact for this, but I thought you'd interested since you're a member of the Economics WikiProject. There is an article called Fortune Global 500. This article is a copy and paste of the list of the 500 largest companies in the world by revenues published by Fortune magazine every year. Fortune magazine lists these companies by countries and cities. They list Shell as being a company from the Netherlands and not a dual company from Britain and the Netherlands (contrary to Unilever). One British Wikipedian doesn't like that and has changed the article, writting that Shell is a dual British/Dutch company, contrary to the source from Fortune magazine. I tried to explain that the article being simply a copy and paste of the Fortune Global 500 list, we have to respect their editorial choices, otherwise it's not the Global Fortune 500 list anymore, it becomes something else. Unfortunately I feel like I'm preaching in the desert, so to speak. If we start changing things from the list based on what we think is right or wrong, then why not also change EADS which Fortune magazine lists as a Dutch company (because it is legally incorporated in the Netherlands for tax reasons), whereas in fact EADS is a Franco-German company with top management in Paris and Munich? As you can see, this could lead to endless changes to the article. I thought on Misplaced Pages we had to write information that matches with the sources we use. It would be nice to hear from you on this point. Keizuko (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you that we can't just edit the list. However, I think the current state of the page with a footnote on Shell's domicile, is fine.JQ (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

JPANDS

You know, the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons is always worthwhile reading. This issue corrects misinformation published in the New England Journal of Medicine recently (PMID 18046031), with the news that radiation is good for you and prevents cancer (courtesy of Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd). They're also still beating the drum about the discredited abortion-breast cancer hypothesis, comparing the National Cancer Institute's finding that there is no such link to be "reminiscent of an event that occurred in Nazi Germany in the 1930s." (I wish I could make this stuff up). That's on top of the paen to AIDS denialism in the last issue. No doubt these "reliable, peer-reviewed sources" are working their way into Misplaced Pages articles as we speak. MastCell  17:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

There needs to be a blacklist of sources like these. The bar should be pretty freaking high for blacklisting a journal, but still, there should be a list, and I think minimally JPANDS, 21st Century Science and Technology, and perhaps some tobacco industry house journals should be on it. Oh wait, 21CS&T already is blacklisted. But still, I think you see the point. Yilloslime (t) 18:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

It would be helpful to draw the link between this group and the Oregon Petition a little more closely. But I can't see a one-step link. JQ (talk) 12:26, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Weinberg Group

I just created Weinberg Group. It's largely a cleaned up cut-and-paste from here (covered under GNU of course), though there is some info in the original which I did not bring over. Anyways, I invite you to take a look, improve it, etc

A nice piece. I clarified a couple of things, and went for more NPOV phrasing. There's a response in the linked ABC article that might be worth quoting somewhere. Also, I think the Sourcewatch template is now deprecated. You might want to check on this.JQ (talk) 21:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll checkout the ABC link. The article definitely needs some work on NPOV, but I figured that that would get sorted out faster by simply putting it in article space, rather than continuing to work on it alone in my user space. As for the sourcewatch template, MastCell added that, and I defer to him on these issues... Yilloslime (t) 21:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Friends of Science

Newish info has come to light. Check these Odds& Ends. Yilloslime (t) 18:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. I Googled to find this story from a WP:RS, which could be used in the article. There's some interesting references to law enforcement action that is supposed to be under way.

What? Not Friends of Science! It must be fun to sit around and come up with Orwellian, ironic names for astroturf groups... MastCell  22:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Requesting your input at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Economics/Featured Article drive

Since you are a member of WikiProject Economics, I would like to direct your attention to Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Economics/Featured Article drive. We are currently deciding on an economics-related article to bring to Featured Article status and we would like your input. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 15:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy

Hey - you're probably already aware of this, but it was recently profiled in the Atlantic Monthly. Apparently there's currently an effort underway to sue a collection of energy and oil companies for conspiracy on the basis of their efforts to mislead the public about the risks of global warming, taking a page from the playbook used against the tobacco industry (). As someone interested in the overlap between tobacco- and oil-company research efforts and tactics, I thought you might be interested. MastCell  16:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert. I saw this one being debated somewhere else, I think. BTW, I have an article on DDT and Rachel Carson in the latest online edition of Prospect . Comments appreciated

Have you read Michael Finkel's article published in National Geographic? It is one the more moving stories I've read in that magazine. In it, he's kind enough to Carson, but I noticed, "In 1962 Rachel Carson published Silent Sptring, documenting this abuse and painting so damning a picture that the chemical was eventually outlawed by most of the world for agricultural use. Exceptions were made for malaria control, but DDT became nearly impossible to procure. 'The ban on DDT,' says Gwadz of the National Institutes of Health, 'may have killed some 20 million children.'" ~ UBeR (talk) 03:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

As demonstrated in the article and at great length on Tim's blog, the claim that "DDT became nearly impossible to procure" is incorrect. The US exported it for years after the 1972 ban, and when it stopped, India took over. Looking at the article as a whole, the Gwadz quote seems to be out of context.JQ (talk) 06:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

JQ, I'm loving the article! Since you asked for comments, here are a couple:

• "Kochi saw the need to placate the critics of the Bush administration..." Did you really mean to say critics of the administration? I see Kochi's announcement as trying to placate the far right in general, including the Bushies. Afterall, as I recall he made his Sept 2006 announcement in DC (or at least in the US) flanked by Admiral Zeimer (Ziemer?) and others from the Bush Administration, rather than from Geneva flanked by WHO staff. You could have also mentioned how like 50% of the malaria department quit when he took over including Allan Shapira, but I realize that there is only so much detail you can put into a few page article.

"of" is a typo, which hit me in the face as soon as I read the article. I'll try and change this. As regards limits, the article was cut from about 3000 words, including some references to Kochi's abrasive nature.JQ (talk) 06:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm your longer version right now, and I see that you've covered all this and that "of" is typo....Yilloslime (t) 16:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• I think it might be an over simplification to rest all, or even most, of the blame for the Carson-Hitler-myth at the feet of Big Tobacco. They certainly seem to have played a big role, but I think "Free Market" think tanks (e.g. Competitive Enterprise Institute, American Enterprise Institute, Cato Institute, etc.) share a big part of the blame as well. I see their promulgation of the myth as a part of a strategy to undermine the environmental movement in general, since it poses a threat to corporate profits (C.f. their positions on Climate Change, Endangered Species, ozone, etc.) and specifically as part of a strategy to undermined the tightening of chemical regulation, especially REACH and SAICM. Just take a look at http://rachelwaswrong.org, which was set up by CEI. Once you get past all the DDT/Malaria misinformation, there's all this stuff on the Stockholm Convention, REACH, etc. And of course just look at who's funding CEI and their ilk. (Yes tobacco, but also the oil and chemicals companies--basically anyone whose profits might be hurt by environmental or public health regulations.)

Agreed that this has taken on a life of its own. Still, it's all just a recapitulation of strategies (and personnel) originating with Big Tobacco.JQ (talk) 06:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyways, these are minor points, and my reading of the bones might be 100% wrong. It's a great article, and I've been waiting for something like this to come out for a while. Kudos. Yilloslime (t) 04:08, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh and by the way, just found this interview with the junkman himself. Yilloslime (t) 04:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure where I'm going with this...

...but if you have anything to add (or remove), please do. Yilloslime (t) 06:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Adam Smith

Hi, you left a lot of empty fields when you were formatting the references, just FYI. Also, I'm guessing you are using something to prefill the fields; if you can, I suggest including only accessdate, url, title, and publisher as the default fields as those are the crucial ones. Gary King (talk) 01:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I've been using the template here I'll make sure at least to include access date.JQ (talk) 10:46, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Economics, and unrelated question

Hi, I saw your recent edits to Adam Smith; I'm not sure if you want to devote a lot of effort, but WikiProject Economics is working on getting the Adam Smith article featured. After this collaboration, I want WP:ECON to focus on improving other articles that are core to economics. If you're interested I know you could be a big help. I see from your Misplaced Pages article that you're a pretty serious academic economist, and I figured I should ask how interested you are in playing an active role in WikiProject Economics, for future reference.

Also, on an unrelated topic, I'm an undergraduate studying economics and I've been thinking about writing my senior thesis on a topic related to utility theory. But I only know the basics of utility theory that they teach in micro and managerial economics. Can you suggest a few academic papers or authors that I should read to get a basic understanding of the utility theory literature? Thanks. -FrankTobia (talk) 16:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Frank. I actually started WikiProject Economics, but it didn't do much for a while and I get overloaded with work from time to time. However, I hope to do more work on Adam Smith and other joint projects in the future. On your other question, are you mainly interested in utility and preference, or uncertainty, expected utility and generalizations (I'm better on the latter, but I can give you some pointers on the former also).JQ (talk) 10:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey again, sorry for the late response. Congrats / good work on starting WP:ECON, I'm glad to have somewhere worthy to focus my time on the 'pedia. I think I'm more interested in utility and preference, though expected utility also looks interesting. Then again, it could go either way as my understanding of utility theory gets deeper. Any general pointers you can give would be most appreciated. -FrankTobia (talk) 14:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Brisbane meetup invitation

	Brisbane Meetup v t e Next: To be decided (watch) Last: Saturday 13 January 2018
See also: Australian events listed at Wikimedia.org.au (or on Facebook)

Hey there, you're invited to the second Brisbane Meetup. Please see the page at Misplaced Pages:Meetup/Brisbane/2 for more details. Hope to see you there!

Automated message delivered by Giggabot (stop!) to Wikipedians in Queensland and known Brisbaneites, at 03:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC).

Great Editorial

Check out http://pubs.acs.org/cen/editor/86/8623editor.html, I think you'll like it. I don't think it's paywalled, at least not yet. Milloy, OISM, and JPANDS are taken to task. In case you are not familiar with the source, C&E News, let me explain: it is the weekly newsmagazine of the American Chemical Society, the professional society which virtually all chemists in the US are members of. It also publishes some of the most prestigious chemical journals. In other words, the ACS is hardly a bunch of hacks, and it ain't that liberal either, and neither is C&E News. Yilloslime (t) 05:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Let's hear it for Rudy Baum! For a society journal, that's ferocious stuff. And, as you say, Chemical and Engineering News doesn't exactly sound like a liberal hotbed.JQ (talk) 08:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who suggests that there might be an ideological effort to abuse science in the service of a narrowly defined right-wing political agenda is automatically a raving liberal. You know, like Richard Carmona. Actually, the neat thing about that editorial is how closely its description of JPandS mirrors our article on the subject. Maybe this site is actually a useful aggregator of reliable information after all? MastCell  16:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that too, actually. I keep a close eye on news articles on DDT, and I've actually seen whole sentences from the DDT article which I wrote end up in news articles verbatim without quotation marks and without attribution! Yilloslime (t)

More from Bate

Perhaps you've already seen it, but Roger Bate has another pro-DDT piece here today. While admitting, finally, that DDT isn't a panacea in the last paragraph (it seems only since your Prospect piece that he has toned down his rhetoric slightly), he none-the-less names the piece "An invaluable Insecticide" and implies that the choice facing Uganda is between spraying DDT or letting 300+ people a day die from malaria. There are a lot of other interesting things he touches on, including claiming that BAT's current opposition to DDT somehow proves that Big Tobacco never had anything to due with the modern pro-DDT disinformation campaign, but the most interesting thing, to me, is his playing fast and loose with the facts. He claims, or at least strongly implies, that recent declines in malaria incidence in Lubombo are due to new DDT use: "But the Lubombo Project succeeded because of indoor house spraying with DDT and other insecticides and the distribution of the best new anti-malaria medicines. It was a triumph of everything that many on the political left want to despise: DDT, mining companies, and aid-rejecting Southern African nations. " But the paper that he cites to back this up reaches different conclusions. It notes that there was no new DDT spraying in the region. Yes, DDT spraying had already been going on in the region for quite some time, but, according to the paper, it was the introduction of IRS with bendiocarb—not more spraying with DDT—that caused the decrease in malaria. Furthermore, the whole point of the paper was not to demonstrate the effectiveness of IRS or one particular insecticide, but rather to highlight the need for for trans-border cooperation for malaria interventions to be successful. You can have all the elements of a great malaria program on one side of the border, but it'll only get you so far if malaria is rampant on the other side, and mosquitoes and people can travel back and forth. Long story shot: Bate caught misrepresenting science again. Yilloslime (t) 20:19, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Unwarranted deletion attempt of small Canadian foreign policy think-tank

Hi there,

We need your help: Filemon, a Warsaw-based Neocon activist wants to delete the Misplaced Pages entry on The Canadian European Council.

It defies logic how a lone amateur Polish contributor with little knowledge of Canada can single-handedly decide to delete a small (yet real and relatively influential) Canadian think-tank.

The Canadian European Council is a real/legitimate think-tank- these guys have published several pieces (some referenced in the Misplaced Pages entry) in:

- The San Francisco Chronicle: one of the top 5 US newspapers - The Daily Star: the Middle-East’s leading English language newspaper

They’re amongst twelve (only!) Canadian political think-tanks listed in Misplaced Pages …

Granted they’re not a very large/active organization, but that doesn’t constitute in itself a valid reason for removal.

I suspect Filemon wants to remove them just because he doesn’t like their anti-neocon stance… I hope I’m wrong!

Anyways, I think this entry must be kept: it’s clear, well –written, concise and abides fully by Wikpidedia guidelines.

Please help us in countering Filemon’s abuse.

Cordially,

Moorehaus (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 12:20, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Where'd you go?

Quiggin--what happened? Did your WP-editing stipend from Big Pharma run out or something? I'm missing your blog and your editing here at the 'pedia. I hope your just off getting an award or something. Yilloslime (t) 16:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The blog had all sorts of hosting problems, now resolved, I hope. I also copped an off-wiki attack for my editing of Fred Singer, which led me to take a bit of a break while I thought about things, but I plan to be back on deck soon.JQ (talk) 09:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Full-reserve banking

Please engage in talk rather than edit-warring in this article. The term hypothetical does not seem to have consensus support. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:04, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for being abrupt. But there doesn't seem to be any claim that a system of full reserve banking actually exists anywhere, so "hypothetical" is consistent with the consensus.JQ (talk) 12:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you know anything about Islamic banking practices? About gold-based banking systems on the internet? About BullionVault for example? Please conduct further research before making edits.

As you can easily check, the reference I cited included an explicit statement from an Islamic Bank, supporting the statement that in practice all such banks operated on a fractional reserve basis. I've spelt out the quote for you.JQ (talk) 07:59, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Abruptness is persisting

Please read the talk pages before making edits. It is annoying if edits have already been discussed and a latecomer then makes edits that have already been discussed. This has occurred on a number of recent edits in DBMS and FRB. It is important to check the archived talk pages as well, before editing.

Censorship?

So you actually go crying to administrators and request a ban on everything related to Austrian economics and the Mises Institute?

Who are you really and what the heck are you trying to acchieve. If you got a problem with me, state it on my talk page. I'll kick your ass in an economics debate anytime, anywhere and twice on Sunday. But you already know that, don't you? That's why you want the ban.

Pathetic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Misessus (talk • contribs) 08:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Feel free. I've published a few pieces in the American Economic Review, making points I don't think you'd agree with, so maybe you could start the debate there.JQ (talk) 10:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

That sounds great! Can you post a link to your pieces here on your talk page? I'd love to read and comment.

Misessus (talk) 15:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)\

Start here - relevance to inflation should be obvious, I hope.JQ (talk) 11:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid the link didn't work. I got an error message when trying to open it.

Misessus (talk) 08:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

As an economic scholar, shouldn't you been able to find a paper from a full reference? It's on JSTOR . If you are not a subscriber, it will set you back a whooping US$ 10. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

If one asks for a link and the other provides one, the polite thing to do is to tell the provider the link didn't work. Bet that thought never crossed your mind.

Misessus (talk) 22:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the alert. This link also works for me (Goes to JSTOR).JQ (talk) 23:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Karmaisking

I hate to interrupt this fascinating colloquy, as I always enjoy retroactive clairvoyance in action, but I think it's time for these socks of Karmaisking (talk · contribs) to be blocked. MastCell  16:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the rant. I recognised the style after a while, but I thought it might be interesting to find out a bit more about this sockpuppeteer, starting with the fact that s/he's apparently an assiduous reader of the Australian Financial Review. Does s/he have a stable IP address that can be blocked, I wonder.JQ (talk) 20:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

You can request an IP check at WP:RFCU (in the bottom section, "Requests for IP check"), but most halfway-dedicated sockpuppeteers can get around that. Sorry to butt in; I was equally curious, having made an effort to bring Karmaisking around to The Light Side awhile back, but the conversation seemed to be degenerating. MastCell  23:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Heterodox economics

This may be an area you are unfamiliar with. Energy economics is mainstream to heterodox, and deleting sourced information that is pertinent to understanding this viewpoint is contraindicated for an understanding of the subject. Edits which are relevant to the topic and supported by reliable sources are most proper. You should not make a blanket (and false) POV accusaion simply because you disagree with what a source says or if the source does not agree with your agenda. Focus on the content, and look at the referencing. skip sievert (talk) 14:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

No content in Category:Economic institutions

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Economic institutions, by another Misplaced Pages user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Economic institutions has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Economic institutions, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 04:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Energy economics

I'm not familiar enough with heterodox economics to be confident about the weight to put on various schools of thought (honestly, I still don't grok the entire concept of a "school of thought", but o well). So that makes me hesitant on the heterodox economics article, in spite of being pretty confident that, say feminist economics is currently more significant than thermoeconomics.

Anyway, I wanted to suggest that paying attention to energy economics might be a good place to start. My understanding is that energy economics is a very mainstream applied field, and so wholly different from how it's being presented--for instance, it shouldn't be listed in the heterodox article. CRETOG8(t/c) 03:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree entirely with working on Energy economics. Would you like to mention it on WikiProject Economics, as I think there will be a fair bit of work needed, and some convincing to be done.JQ (talk) 10:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Money demand

Thanks for the heads up. I've been meaning to get around to that article forever and will try to do some work over the next few days. As far as Economic Freedom goes I'm not sure I got any specific expertise on the subject matter. I agree with you that there's an undue weight problem there. In addition to Roosevelt's "Four Freedoms" I think something from Sen should be included. I put it on my watchlist.radek (talk) 00:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Another article that could use some rescue

A Monetary History of the United States. Even if you're not a fan, the current presentation is pretty POV.radek (talk) 02:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not a good article, but I don't know the book well enough to improve it. I've watchlisted it, so if you have any problems improving it, I'll be happy to jump in.JQ (talk) 03:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Conservapedia & Barack Obama

The article on Conservapedia isn't here to discuss every single bit of silliness on that site. Specifically regarding president-elect Obama, a discussion suggests limiting the amount of coverage of CP's Obama article.--Andrewlp1991 (talk) 06:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Replied on talk page.JQ (talk) 07:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

There are definitely some strange things afoot at the John Lott article. I've done a bit of cleanup (see relevant block log entries), so we'll see what shakes out. MastCell  18:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

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

127.0.0.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

original block message

• Blocking administrator: not provided (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: Not enough information to undo autoblock ,see full instructions at Template:Autoblock. — --fvw* 02:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

John, I'm going to need more info. I can't find the place you would be autoblocked to fix it. --Smashville 01:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I seem to have been unblocked now.JQ (talk) 05:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Credit crunch ELs

Someone doesn't know how to add an EL. I'm blocked and don't propose to edit. I know you're in the "inner sanctum" so perhaps you can clean it up. - PonziMadeOffWithGold (talk) 10:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Sources and agendas

Along similar lines, I've reverted your changes to Smokeasy and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. I suggest you spend a bit of time editing articles on topics other than smoking, so you can see how the process works, and learn to contribute without wasting your own time and everyone else's. JQ (talk) 05:27, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

John, What is the harm in criticisms being put in the CRITICISMS section. They are referenced. There's certainly alot of positive talk in the first part of the article to sell the propenents agenda. In addition, I don't see you deleting proponent posted comments such as calling opposition studies "tobacco industry funded" as is to discredit them in the Environmental Tobacco Smoke page. So if "tobacco settlement agreement" or "Robert Wood Johnson" is posted that's not ok but "tobacco industry funded" is. IS THIS FAIR? Furthermore, what is unfair about simply listing the people who push for against smoking ban legislation. As we all know, no law of that is significant ever gets passed or in most cases even heard in committee without heavy lobbying. It's documented and referenced and contains no bias. Can you claim that bar assocition haven't lobbyed against bans or the ACS for bans. Can show you actual formal testimony to legislative committees online if you like. Will be reposting this section. Just want to make this article less biased in favor of ban proponents. There are two sides to this story. - Peace Brother.

Congratz! Your article's been feature on my favourite econ blog

I wonder if you noticed, but your article has been been featured by Mark Thoma on Economist's View, my favorite econ blog (mainly because he seems to find all the interesting articles and sticks them in one place). This should count as at least a minor journal article.  ;-)
--LK (talk) 07:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

ThankZ!JQ (talk) 09:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI

re: passive smoking, see User:Yilloslime#IP_tracking. Yilloslime (t) 01:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, just want to say thanks for clearing that vandalism of my talk page. I appreciate it.  :-) LK (talk) 04:10, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem.JQ (talk) 19:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

The Business and Economics Barnstar

		The Business and Economics Barnstar
		For tirelessly improving the quality of Economics articles on Misplaced Pages. LK (talk) 08:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Economics articles are looking a lot better today than they did a year ago, and your efforts have made a major contribution to that. LK (talk) 08:55, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Pro slavery?

How exactly was the phrasing you changed "pro-slavery"? Toddst1 (talk) 01:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'm over-sensitive on this, but it seemed to me that the phrasing "lost slaves to the Union army" both normalised slavery and failed to impute agency to the ex-slaves who enlisted. Similarly, the previous sentence associates the slaves with the estate, not with the slave-owner. I guess this kind of language did not seem out of the ordinary when it was used in 1946, but I think we can do better now. JQ (talk) 02:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Sock

John, I am not certain that Michael.Suede is the presumed sock of Karmaisking that we had thought.--Gregalton (talk) 05:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Certainly the name is atypical, although the conduct and targets are fairly standard. Fortunately, the ban imposed was for edit-warring, and he's certainly guilty of that. JQ (talk) 06:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Additional information needed on Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Icymilktea

Hello. Thank you for filing Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Icymilktea. This is an automated notice to inform you that the case is currently missing a code letter, which indicates to checkusers why a check is valid. Please revisit the page and add this. Sincerely, SPCUClerkbot (talk) 22:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

On the same case, am I to assume that you are filing another Karmaisking sock? If so, please can you take care to follow the instructions. Cases must be filed under the name of the master account. Doing otherwise just creates extra work. Mayalld (talk) 23:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Additional information needed on Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Karmaisking

Hello. Thank you for filing Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Karmaisking. This is an automated notice to inform you that the case is currently missing a code letter, which indicates to checkusers why a check is valid. Please revisit the page and add this. Sincerely, SPCUClerkbot (talk) 00:02, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

SPI cases

Please, can you slow down on SPI.

Trying to fix malformed cases is becoming a full time job.

Please note the following;

1. Cases are filed under the name of the master account.
2. Cases do not have suffixes like "Again".
3. Moving case pages without clearing up redirects after yourself breaks thinks horribly.
4. If a case is already open, add to it. Don't create a second case.

Mayalld (talk) 10:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Federal Reserve

There's another, ongoing, round of disruptive Austrian themed edits going on over at the Federal Reserve System. I know it's a different country but this looks like much the same pattern as before on other articles so you might be interested in looking in on it.radek (talk) 02:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI, I've semiprotected the page for 3 days to slow the onslaught of questionable edits. Some of the new accounts seem a bit iffy; it may be worth looking into them further. MastCell  05:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Inflation RM

You previously participated in a discussion at Talk:Inflation. The article has been moved again so, if you care to clarify of reiterate your position, please participate at Talk:Inflation (financial)#Requested move: part 2. — AjaxSmack 23:57, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Consistency

On Index of Economic Freedom you want talk page discussion on removal of remarks by non-expert blogger, while on Paul Krugman and Keynesian economics you are removing criticisms by economists on grounds that they are fringe and not notable. -- Vision Thing -- 12:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The criticism I removed was non-substantive or trivial, as well as being from WP:FRINGE and/or non-notable sources. The IEF is a political not an economic construct (it's created by a rightwing thinktank and a rightwing newspaper) and I included a substantive political criticism from a commentator who is appropriate in the context - a writer for a leftwing thinktank. But the point was the criticism, not to name-check some obscure figure who likes/doesn't like the subject of the article.JQ (talk) 18:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Bizarre Edits on Spiked-Online page

They don't make much sense and you've edited a large amount of content —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.39.226 (talk) 22:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

RFPP

Please note that your behaviour shown in the examples given at the RFPP report you filed demonstrate actions which are disruptive to Misplaced Pages. You should avoid page blanking and personal attacks or risk being blocked. Nja 07:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

not vandalism

This good faith edit was not vandalism (please read the wlink to understand the definition of vandalism on en.Misplaced Pages). Thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

As you can check, the edit was by (one of dozens of) sock puppets of permanently banned User:Karmaisking. The sock account has also been permanently blocked. As far as I can see, the only way to deal with a recidivist troll/vandal like this is to revert their edits immediately, without checking content. If you have a better approach, I'm open to it. But I can't see how WP:AGF applies to a user who has been banned dozens of times and continues to disrupt the project. JQ (talk) 13:08, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It is a sock and has been blocked by me for that reason. However note that just because it's a sock doesn't mean that everything it does is harmful and disruptive. In this instance, the edit was not vandalism or disruptive and didn't need reverting. Nja 13:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you clarify a bit on this? Are you saying that each new sock created by a permanently blocked user is entitled to edit just like anyone else (with the benefit of WP:AGF, access to dispute resolution and so on) until they are blocked in turn, and that even after they have been blocked, their edits should still be treated the same as any others? This would seem to render the concept of a block entirely meaningless. I have been working on the assumption that "blocked" means "prohibited from editing Misplaced Pages" including by sock puppets. In this case, superficially constructive edits are merely part of the broader claim to article ownership that got this user banned in the first place.JQ (talk) 13:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

That's not what I said. What I said is that a positive contribution, ie one that is not disruptive and fulfils all inclusion policies, doesn't need to be reverted just because a sock did it. There's no question at all that socks, especially those evading blocks need dealt with immediately. Accordingly they should be reported to WP:SPI, possibly WP:ANI, or directly to any admin familiar with the situation. A report to WP:UAA would be acceptable as well granted the edits are actually disruptive to Misplaced Pages. So to answer your question, there's no need to AGF in these situations, but there's no reason to revert 'just because' if the edit is completely uncontroversial. Also in this instance there was no edit war where the sock was trying to capitalise the "L" over and over and therefore irrelevant. If that were the case that's obviously disruptive. By allowing a non-issue like the capitalisation of a word to bother you is feeding into the rush this person may get by being disruptive. Nja 13:56, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Didn't know it was a sock, the edits of block-evading/banned users can be reverted whether or not they're helpful. However, the edit was not vandalism, the edit summary should have noted it, not as vandalism, but as the edit of a blocked or banned user. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:15, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Can, but doesn't have to be. This is a topic of discussion, for example see my answer to question 6. Nja 14:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we see this more or less the same way, Nja. As I said, can be reverted... by any editor. Some socks seem to be editing helpfully but have something harmful (unencyclopedic) in mind, whilst en.Misplaced Pages also has many socks of blocked users who've come back and are being helpful, it's ok to let those slide, sometimes. So it's up to editors who know the topics and socks. JQ, what you did was not a big deal, I was only saying, if it's not straightforward bad faith vandalism, it's not vandalism on en.Misplaced Pages and should never be noted as such in the edit summary. Had you put rv edit by blocked user in the summary, it's unlikely I'd have even looked at the diff. So my note was only to let you know. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for chiming in here but just wanted to note something as someone who has seen this banned user operate in practice. Edits by socks of banned users can and SHOULD be reverted more or less automatically even if any particular edit appears to be "helpful" non vandalism. This is because users get themselves banned not for any single edit but for a whole pattern of behavior. A common strategy employed by disruptive users, including this one, is to mix vandalism-like disruptive edits with some "neutral" maybe even "helpful" ones in order to make the vandalism harder to detect. And in fact catching the vandalism/disruptions among a plethora of possibly decent edits can be very time consuming, not to mention frustrating (you got to go back and re-insert the legit grammar changes or whatever, etc...). This is why users who engage in disruptive editing eventually wind up being COMPLETELY banned. It would just not be time-effective to try to deal with them on an edit by edit basis. Regular editors would hardly have time for content creation. Also reverting a sock's edits, even non-vandalism ones, sends a clear message to the banned user of "sorry, you had your chance, you're not welcome here anymore" and hopefully encourages the banned user to desist. Reverting a sock's edit on sight is just following Wiki policy, in fact, it's following a GOOD Wiki policy and I think John acted entirely appropriately here. Sometimes it seems like some people forget that vandalism-reversion and ban enforcement is as much a public service provided by individual editors as content creation.radek (talk) 05:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

No one said he had acted poorly aside from what Gwen correctly noted. While policy does generally say what you summarised, it also says "This does not mean that obviously helpful edits (such as fixing typos or undoing vandalism) must be reverted just because they were made by a banned user". Overall, everyone is free to interpret policy, but in the end discretion is on the user and/or admin to revert. I think that by reverting the capitalisation in this example could actually feed in to the need for attention by the problem user, but that is merely my opinion. Regardless, feel free to email me when these socks appear and I'll try to sort them asap (though I'm on holiday all next week). Cheers. Nja 07:15, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Wholly aside from worries about socks and tips on what's vandalism and what's not, libertarian isn't a proper name and hence shouldn't be capitalized in English. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. It's difficult to handle really determined disruption like this, and I've tried a variety of things, some of them effective and some definitely counterproductive, but I've learned a few lessons on what to do (and not to do). I plan to take a break from enforcement for a while, and focus on some new contributions while I recover my energy - hopefully, LK and others will get the help they need to protect the project.JQ (talk) 12:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Evan Vaughan Anwyl

Putative. Much better word. Thanks. ~Geaugagrrl 05:14, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Glad you liked it!JQ (talk) 07:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Smallman12q (talk) 20:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

You haven't replied back. I assume you will leave the references then.Smallman12q (talk) 21:00, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the lack of reply. I was planning on seeking the advice of some other editors in the Economics project, but haven't got around to it yet.JQ (talk) 22:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

No worries, let me know when you get a reply.Smallman12q (talk) 23:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Minimum Wage

Removing the category "economics" from this article makes no sense. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

It's already under several subcategories of "economics" such as "labor economics". The standard rule for categories is not to assign articles to top-level categories if they can be put in subcategories.JQ (talk) 05:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I hope you'll join us in terms of substantive edits on the minimum wage. The article needs a lot of work.Academic38 (talk) 09:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I've written a bit on this in the Australian context.JQ (talk) 10:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that would be great. The article is too weighted towards U.S. perspectives as it currently stands. Then there is the long list of arguments for and against, which is grotesque looking and unbalanced. I'm sure you'll notice plenty of other problems. Thanks again. Cheers! Academic38 (talk) 18:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Could you take a look at the minimum wage talk page? A lot is going on that would benefit from your insight. Thanks! Academic38 (talk) 04:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

history of economic thought

Hi John, I was wondering if you'd like to offer any views on this page, as I've seen you've done some very good work and you're an expert. I wrote this page a while back and have been slowly trying to complete it, but am running into difficulty, as you'll see from the bottom of the Talk page. Any advice you might give would be appreciated. Wikidea 00:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I started a stub on the split-off article on Modern Macro HET: History of Modern Macroeconomic Thought still very rough and basically just the skeleton, so any help in filling this out would be much appreciated. I think Equity Premium Puzzle and Efficient Markets Hypothesis should be in there somewhere but not sure where to stick it.radek (talk) 06:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations...

... do tell. :) MastCell  06:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

 ;-) JQ (talk) 06:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Be careful.Misplaced Pages has a way of generating its own reality... MastCell  19:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Mit Brennender Sorge

Hi JQ, I have rolled back your edit on this page. I explained my action on the discussion page and added additional sources and quotes to supplement what you eliminated before my rollback of your edit. Bokenkotter has been a university textbook on the Catholic Church for decades. It is used by many universities, more than a few of which are not Catholic. It meets the highest qualifications set forth in WP:reliable source examples as a peer reviewed scholarly source with notes and bibliography that is written by a university professor who is an expert on the topic. We can't just eliminate material referenced to this kind of source. NancyHeise 04:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Replied on article talk page.JQ (talk) 06:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies

Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change. If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 17:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI: interesting article

Bate and Switch. 17:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi John. I've finally gotten around to incorporating content from the article into Roger Bate, and I'd love you're input, if you've got time. Yilloslime _C 20:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. I've added a bit on the "counterfeit" drugs stuff. JQ (talk) 22:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Lucas Welfare Cost of Fluctuations

I started a new article on Lucas Welfare Cost of Fluctuations - the Lucas estimate which says that the business cycle doesn't matter. So far I've only managed to write out the basic idea, derivation and concept. Obviously there's been a lot of criticisms of this estimate/result, a lot of them related to the Equity Premium Puzzle. I'm not sure if I'll have time to expand the article in terms of criticisms and extensions so any input would be much appreciated.radek (talk) 08:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Mit brennender Sorge

Hi John, I was drawn back to the article after researching something on racism and noted you had made some excellent edits without war breaking out. Taking the opportunity I made some additions and clarifications, but the base article suffers from a basic structural fault due to the apologetic slant that already existed: one opinion ends up being opposed by another and so on. Anyway just to say if you don't like any off it please don't be inhibited about changing any of my edits, at least I know you are aiming for NPOV Taam (talk) 00:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Very good edits, and I don't think there will be any support for a wholesale reversion. I've reorganised it, in a way that I think gives a good presentation of all views. The intro could probably be tweaked. I think there's a pretty clear consensus that the encyclical was critical of Nazism and racism, but disagreement over the extent to which it presented Nazism as irreconcilable with Catholicism.JQ (talk) 06:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Your clean up much improves the readability of the text. It now at least seems to be more directed to the encyclical itself rather than apologetic tripe trying to prove Pope Pius XII etc. was not an anti-semite, which has little to do with the main purpose of this article. Many decent scholars lament the polarised opinions that now plague this whole field so I thought the addition of the extracts from "Church and state through the centuries", which was written by catholic scholars long before the partisan battles erupted in the early 1960's, was a useful reference. It's available through Google books and it might be a good source for expanding the section dealing with the historical context of the encyclical, something that is largely lacking in the present article. Taam (talk) 10:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Minimum Wage

John - Your recent edit of Minimum wage removes material from the middle of a carefully cited statement and replaces it with a somewhat different viewpoint from a different source. I think we would be well served if the original statment were made whole again and the new material were placed somewhere other than in the middle of it. I'm reluctant to do it myself, since it's your work. What do you think? Lou Sander (talk) 21:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not quite clear what you're referring to. As regards the list of effects, the order in the article with "Helps small and large businesses" first, made no sense. Perhaps some proponents may argue that minimum wages help business, but this would be a minority view even among supporters, and I don't think anyone supports minimum wages primarily as a pro-business policy. Was this the edit you had in mind? JQ (talk) 00:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

JEL classification codes

Thanks, I've been trying to do some work on this area. I haven't actually worked on any economic research in a long time, but I might be going back to it soon. --Eastlaw  ⁄ _contribs 08:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

GLAM-WIKI

Dear John,

I was wondering whether you knew about the GLAM-WIKI conference happening in Canberra in a months' time. I'd be delighted if you were able to attend. Please contact me on lwyatt@wikimedia.org.au to talk about this further if you are. I have a proposition for you :-) Witty Lama 15:30, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Krugman of Australia

I see from your blog that you've been called the 'Krugman of Australia'. A great honor.
Congrats,  :-) LK (talk) 04:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Of course, not everyone agrees!

Your eddits on Freedom of Contract

I restored your sensible eddits on this page after Groberst reverted them. Mostly my problem was that he didn't explain. Just thought you might want to know. Piratejosh85 (talk) 17:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! It's always worrying when a new user starts with a revert.JQ (talk) 17:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

RfC at WT:ECON

I've reformulated the proposed guidelines based on your and other's comments. I would appreciate it if you could have a look and further comment there. Thankyou, --LK (talk) 15:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Mediation for WikiProject Economics Guidelines

A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning WikiProject Economics Guidelines has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/WikiProject Economics Guidelines and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Misplaced Pages:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Misplaced Pages:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Misplaced Pages's policy on resolving disagreements is at Misplaced Pages:Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, LK (talk) 07:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry it's come to this, but edit warring continues on the project homepage. LK (talk) 07:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/WikiProject Economics Guidelines. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 12:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for mediation/WikiProject Economics Guidelines

Hi there. Please refactor your statement so it's under the 250 word limit - it's simply going to get out of hand if anyone had more space than that given the number of parties. Kind regards, Ryan Postlethwaite 00:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Done! JQ (talk) 01:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Problem with Ergosophy

You put back a tag on this article that is meant to be taken off under certain conditions that were met... here. Please do not do things like that. The tag said You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason. I hope you understand that now. skip sievert (talk) 03:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

It would appear that the article Ergosophy, that you submitted for proposed deletion has had its tag removed twice in less than 24 hours without an explanation given in an edit summary. Per comment I have left on the article talk page here, you are free to look at the situation and I would suggest addition to WP:AFD if there is further concern. Cheers. Datheisen (talk) 03:19, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Misplaced Pages:Notability and "What Misplaced Pages is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 02:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I admit it

Yes, I was wikistalking you. Hope you don't mind. CRETOG8(t/c) 07:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Now to call in my trusty edit team, and refute your fringe POV! (Cue: Evil laugh). Henchmen, summon Cretog and the rest of the crew to crush the upstart Cre.. Whoops!.JQ (talk) 11:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Notice

FYI: The Four Deuces (talk) 22:02, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see...

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Attacks at AfD. Thanks, Johnfos (talk) 23:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Skipsievert and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, The Four Deuces (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bring me in. Richard Tol (talk) 05:42, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem and the process seems to have worked (finally). I hope that we can help to promote expert input to Misplaced Pages, recognising (as we know!) that expert opinion encompasses a wide range of views.JQ (talk) 09:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Denialism

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Denialism. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Misplaced Pages:Notability and "What Misplaced Pages is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Denialism (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Thank you for bringing your expertise to the Technocracy articles and recent AfDs. -- Johnfos (talk) 19:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks v much for this! JQ (talk) 05:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

some new econ articles

A bit out of your main area I believe but nonetheless I would very much appreciate a look over: Preston curve, Williamson trade-off model. Particularly for the latter one I'd like some help with anti-trust policy issues outside of UK and US - and it's pertinent given the Nobel prize.radek (talk) 06:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello John Quiggin! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 3 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 5 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Peter Baldwin (actor) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. David Hamill - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
3. Bob Hudson (Australian singer) - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Rajendra K. Pachauri

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Rajendra K. Pachauri, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. --TS 14:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

John Adams

You seem to be having a go at some traffic/road safety articles with references to John Adams (geographer). While his findings have sometimes been uncomfortable this does not warrant writing off his contribution to these fields as Fringe, as he is nonetheless respected in Transport Planning & risk professions. For example the seatbelt article benefits to an extent from reference to his research, for example the Australian introduction of belts was never baselined. His risk thinking in this area is now mainstream in Shared use/shared space road schemes. Looking at earlier items in this page, I'm wonder if you are confusing him with another John Adams? Ephebi (talk)

My Fringe reference was really aimed at the extensive discussion of the Isles report - unpublished, not peer-reviewed and based on very limited data, but thirty years later still apparently a cause celebre in some circles. I wouldn't call Adams fringe, but he clearly represents a minority view, not supported by the vast majority of officials studies and heavily criticised in the academic literature. The articles as I found them were a massive violation of WP:WEIGHT, similar to the state of the articles on smoking a few years ago, when they were full of tobacco lobby talking points. I may have been overzealous in cleaning them up at various points, but they certainly need work. JQ (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Conducting research on WikiProjects

Dear John,

We are professors at Carnegie Mellon University conducting research on how online groups operate, with a strong history of research on Misplaced Pages.

We would like to discuss collaborating with you with the goals of both improving integration of new members into your WikiProject as well as advancing the understanding of the science behind online groups.

Our recent research has shown that joining a WikiProject boosts editors' contributions to the project substantially, and that specific kinds of interactions between existing project members and newcomers encourage newcomers to contribute more and longer. We are now working on translating these findings into interventions that will increase the vitality of WikiProjects, helping them attract, motivate, and retain members who are knowledgeable and able to contribute to the project.

We have identified your project (Economics) as an initial candidate that we would love to work with moving forward based on your participants and the amount of assessment work your project needs accomplished. Please feel free to contact me (Prof. Robert Kraut robert.kraut@cmu.edu) with any questions and to find out more.

Information about our research can be found at http://community.hciresearch.org/content/improving-socialization-newcomers-wikiprojects.

If you are interested in this collaboration please contact Rosta Farzan at rfarzan@cs.cmu.edu or leave a note at Rosta Farzan's talk page at (talk)

Thank you,

(Rosta Farzan (talk), Feb 2, 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 17:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC).

Talk:Weinberg Group

There's a request on that page for better referencing on some specific things in that article. I've fixed most of it, but there's still some tobacco industry subterfuge stuff that needs help. I thought you might be able and perhaps even interested in taking that on. (No worries if you are not, of course). I left this message on MastCell's page as well. Yilloslime _C 20:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that. I'm travelling at the moment, and probably won't get to it for a while. It looks as if you have dealt with most of the problems.JQ (talk) 05:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Seat belt laws vandalism / non NPOV

It appears judging by your edits that you are removing valid sourced information to give the article a specific point of view regarding seat belt efficiancy. mainly you seem to revert anything that states (no matter how well sourced) a disparity between seat belt laws and the actual safety/prevention of death statistics.. up to and including removing sourced studies due to age. wikipedia is not a place to try to explain your point of view or convince others. It is a collabrative effort to present sourced facts. not remove things you disagree with. Please get CONCENSUS prior to removing sourced information on the article -Tracer9999 (talk) 18:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:OR

I've just received your threat to "Topic Ban" me for correcting an attribution. The article is quite clear, the byline does not credit Lambert. That you "know" better should be put to more productive use. Correct the source, don't engage in Original Research to change the written record. Your "claim" has no bearing here. 99.144.192.23 (talk) 19:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The current byline is simply incorrect. When the article first appeared online, it was credited to Quiggin and Lambert, and Roger Bate's reply (in the very same issue) starts with "Contra John Quiggin and Tim Lambert...". And here's a blog post from that time that refers to "Quiggin and Lambert's article." The preponderance of evidence is that current online version is wrong. Anyone have access to a print version? I've got $20 that say's it's credited to Quiggin and Lambert... Yilloslime _C 19:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It only appeared online, unfortunately. But this exchange indicates the attitude of this WP:SPA. If there's one thing I can't stand it's a 'new' user or anon editor who engages in silly wikilawyering. JQ (talk) 19:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Isn't editing information related to yourself a violation of WP:COI? -Tracer9999 (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It can be, but merely correcting the authorship of something that you're an author on doesn't seem to be violating WP:COI to me. The anon is being unreasonable here, although I'd accept that attribution is somewhat messed up in the online version. --PLUMBAGO 20:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks,PLUMBAGO. While you're here, could you take a look at Seat belt legislation. I'd appreciate your views on WP:WEIGHT.JQ (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) No worries. The DDT mistake by the anon was fine once, but the repeated obstinate deletions were absurd. I'll have a look at Seat belt legislation tomorrow. --PLUMBAGO 21:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like to see some sort of attribution to the co author.. maybe someone who wrote the article..cough..cough.. can send a letter to the source and ask them to correct the written record.. which will make both parties happy.. rather then argue over the not listed person, because someone on wikipedia claims to be the original author and has inside knowledge... just a suggestion to help everyone.. record is corrected on the source side.. and there is no issue guy gets the attribution -Tracer9999 (talk) 20:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll get on to this. But in the meantime, the anon editor should just stop being silly.JQ (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Tracer9999: have a look at the article yourself - it says who the authors are in the author info box. And the reply to the article cites both coauthors. This is an open and shut case. --PLUMBAGO 21:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Seat belt

Hi JQ. I've had a brief look at the article, and while I think Tracer9999 is systematically (and deleteriously) shifting the POV of the article away from neutral, the material that is being added does, to a first glance, appear relevant. I've no knowledge at all in this area, so I can't judge how plausible this interpretation is, but it seems to come from multiple sources over a number of years. Which isn't to say that it's not a careful selection of sources. Anyway, what I would say is that Tracer9999 has been removing what seems sensible material along the way, and that this is skewing the article. I can have a more detailed look later, but I'm not able to spend as much time as I'd like here at the moment. Sorry that I can't help much more at present. Cheers, --PLUMBAGO 14:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

wp:rs wp:blp

I have reverted your revert here a blog is never wp:rs and a blog post accusing people of "astroturfing" most certainly is not. mark nutley (talk) 17:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

This is incorrect. A blog can be an RS William M. Connolley (talk) 17:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Not so WMC, a blog can be only be wp:rs if part of a newspaper which is already wp:rs and is under full editorial control, deltoid blog is neither of these and thus is not wp:rs mark nutley (talk) 18:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Please note the following, I have reverted your reverison, exxonsecrets.org is never going to be wp:rs also the following are not wp:rs This is an opinon blog and sourcewathc is not A Reliable source

Do not reinsert unreliable sources again or i will have to take an RFE against you. Thanks mark nutley (talk) 11:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You are clearly assuming a consensus which does not exist. And, you have shown yourself to be an edit warrior and SPA, devoted to pushing anti-scientific views. So, please take action, and see where it gets you. Too busy to revert you now, but I will when I get around tuit.JQ (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

This is not about consensus, it is about policy. Your continued use of unreliable sources and your reverting them back in makes you an edit warrior, please do not use them again. Thank you mark nutley (talk) 23:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

AN/I Discussion on your edits opened.

An AN/I discussion regarding your edits has been opened here:. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.142.1.101 (talk) 22:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Roger Bate

It appears that nobody has yet taken the time to draw to your attention our policies on conflict of interest, specifically in respect of citing your own work, and nobody seems to have taken the trouble to explain in much detail about our policies on biographies, sourcing or original research.

At the risk of sounding condescending, which is not the intention, Misplaced Pages is fundamentally different form academic publishing. You are encouraged to cite reliable independent secondary sources but not primary sources, and not advance your own theories or findings. Also if you are an expert in a field and find another expert to be publishing material you find erroneous, you would expect to bring this up in an academic journal, but on Misplaced Pages you have to tread carefully and ideally restrict yourself to neutral comments on the Talk pages of articles, especially where you have an external dispute with the subject as you do with Bate.

I advise you to read the noticeboard thread and take it on board, and ask for advice if you are in any doubt about specific articles. Guy (Help!) 22:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for this advice, and for your fairminded assessment of the complaint against me. I have responded a bit further at WP:ANI, bringing up some general policy issues. I will follow your suggestion regarding use of the talk pages rather than directly editing to include my own work.JQ (talk) 23:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

For what its worth--and I'll make this comment over at AN/I as well--while it's clearly a COI to cite one's own work, to my knowledge JQ has never done this. I was the one who added the Quiggin/Lambert Prospect article to Roger Bate, and I've cited it elsewhere too. I can't recall ever seeing JQ or Lambert use this--or any other work they've authored--as a source. And I don't think it's a COI for JQ to edit Roger Bate simply because he's written about him in real life. It would be ridiculous to suggest that it's a COI for an astronomer to edit astronomy, and don't see why we should treat this article any differently just because it's a BLP. If someone has taken the time to research and write about a relatively obscure person in real life, we should be encouraging, not discouraging, them to add that knowledge to wikipedia. Yilloslime _C 01:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this you?

Just curious :-) mark nutley (talk) 21:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

PC Book on Amazon.com

Look at the link, and the contents thereof, rather than the title of the book. None of the claims made in the wiki article as they pertain to this book are supported by the content of the amazon page. It either needs a new ref, or removal of the claims in the wiki article. ColDickPeters (talk) 13:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The link got screwed up somehow and pointed to the wrong book. Fixed now, I hope.JQ (talk) 02:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

You enjoy digging?

lmao, that comment was made when i first came here and did not know the rules, please find one a tad more up to date ya :-) mark nutley (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

note

My apologies. It was User:Thegoodlocust. I've edited accordingly. JQ (talk) 22:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt response, much appreciated. It's always nice to see a common ground.99.144.249.249 (talk) 22:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#COI edits in respect of living individuals and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,

Politically Correct article changes

I did not remove the information about "Cultural Marxism" I moved them to the appropriate section. It is not an Explanation of the subject, it is a highly biased and pejorative accusation / criticism by extreme right wing political pundits. With your current revision, that section has the same material in two separate places. In the "Explanation" which does not make sense and implies a communist conspiracy that is simply fantastical, and "Criticism of". Calling perceived left wing ideals "Marxist", Communist" or "Socialist" may be very popular right now, but it is no more accurate than calling perceived right wing ideals Fascist or Nazi..ish(?). Both examples have no place in an article as an "explanation". Opinions by professional opinion writers are not verifiable facts. That is why the section on World War 2 does not cite Pat Buchanan as a verifiable reference. Another problem is that Buchanan has also claimed in his book 'State of Emergency', that "white guilt" caused by Hitler were the holocaust were the catalysts that created political correctness.

--DCX (talk) 02:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)