| Revision as of 18:20, 18 April 2013 editMiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Robot: Archiving 1 thread (older than 31d) to User talk:SPECIFICO/Archive 1.← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:29, 20 April 2013 edit undoSteeletrap (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users10,937 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 54: | Line 54: | ||
| Hello. There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. | Hello. There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. | ||
| == Mises Institute == | |||
| I am concerned that the pages of most of their scholars, such as ], ], ], ] and ], are only or overwhelmingly sourced by Mises Institute-affiliated publications (see: LewRockwell.com (the Mises chairman's website), the ], and the ].) That raises serious questions about notability. Moreover, (and I'm really not saying this to personally attack anybody, but just to make a factual point) it is telling that one person (] a former Mises Institute employee, who is currently working on a "Mises Wiki" project for the institute) appears to have created or "substantially edited" the vast majority of pages for Mises Institute scholars. that certainly doesn't prove bias or bad intentions in and of itself, and he should certainly be given the benefit of the doubt regarding his intentions, but I think it's difficult to maintain a NPOV when one is writing about one's colleagues and friends, so while his contributions shouldn't be negated, other (non-Mises affiliated) people should get involved. And at a more broad level, could you contact an editor to look at the Mises Institute pages to determine whether they are a ] and that most of them should be merged into one (much more neutral) page? ] (]) 15:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:29, 20 April 2013
| This is SPECIFICO's talk page, where you can send her messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22Auto-archiving period: 31 days  |
Talkback bitcoin
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
A beer for you!
|
I appreciate your scrutiny. Thanks for making Misplaced Pages a reliable place. ☥NEO (talk) 01:36, 23 March 2013 (UTC) |
ANI notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
I suggest you don't slander.
I am not edit-warring. I am following the sources. Uncited claims can be removed in good-faith. I reverted one of your sets of edits within a 24-hour period. That is far from edit-warring. --☥NEO (talk) 01:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- No. The change from "over" to "approximately" is not an uncited claim. It is a more accurate statement that removes the unbounded and slightly promotional sense of "over." Once I reverted "over" the next step is Discuss. Please review WP:BRD then undo your reinstatement of "over" and then state your concerns on talk, per policy. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 02:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- The real problem is what we are working with is not a true secondary source. The fight over accuracy stems from this: We are interpreting data subjectively and writing it in our own words. If the statement ever appears again and if the market recovers past $1 billion, I will be sure to cite a reliable article or news piece, and we will use their exact wording to refer to the value of the monetary base. Else, we will use the most prevalent terms that appear across all sources. --☥NEO (talk) 02:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- That is absurd. You are going to scrutinize all sources minute by minute to determine what word to choose? This is not a "fight" and it has nothing to do with accuracy. "Over" is not accurate, as you well know. That is exactly why "approximately" is the robust operational approach. SPECIFICO talk 02:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
- No. The change from "over" to "approximately" is not an uncited claim. It is a more accurate statement that removes the unbounded and slightly promotional sense of "over." Once I reverted "over" the next step is Discuss. Please review WP:BRD then undo your reinstatement of "over" and then state your concerns on talk, per policy. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 02:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Specifico
Would you be interested to help me on this project? https://meta.wikimedia.org/Global_Economic_Map
I am trying to duplicate this economic report for all 196 countries. Would you be willing to contribute by duplicating this model for another country?
United States: http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Mcnabber091/Economy_of_the_United_States
China: http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Mcnabber091/sandbox
Mcnabber091 (talk) 05:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hello. Thank you for the invitation, but I'm afraid I don't have the time to devote to this right now. Good luck with your project. SPECIFICO talk 13:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
Bitcoin
Sorry, that was my mistake. I should have checked the Talk Page first. I have reverted my edit. Cheers! TOW talk 20:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- Much appreciated. SPECIFICO talk 21:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
ANI notice
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Mises Institute
I am concerned that the pages of most of their scholars, such as Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Stephan Kinsella, Mark Thornton, Burton Blumert, and Jesús Huerta de Soto, are only or overwhelmingly sourced by Mises Institute-affiliated publications (see: LewRockwell.com (the Mises chairman's website), the Journal of Libertarian Studies, and the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics.) That raises serious questions about notability. Moreover, (and I'm really not saying this to personally attack anybody, but just to make a factual point) it is telling that one person (DickClarkMises a former Mises Institute employee, who is currently working on a "Mises Wiki" project for the institute) appears to have created or "substantially edited" the vast majority of pages for Mises Institute scholars. that certainly doesn't prove bias or bad intentions in and of itself, and he should certainly be given the benefit of the doubt regarding his intentions, but I think it's difficult to maintain a NPOV when one is writing about one's colleagues and friends, so while his contributions shouldn't be negated, other (non-Mises affiliated) people should get involved. And at a more broad level, could you contact an editor to look at the Mises Institute pages to determine whether they are a Walled Garden and that most of them should be merged into one (much more neutral) page? Steeletrap (talk) 15:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)