User talk:SlamDiego/Archive 15

Contents

Orc Hives
Some messages may be found
· in the first orc hive,
· in the second orc hive,
· in the third orc hive,
· in the fourth orc hive,
· in the fifth orc hive,
· in the sixth orc hive,
· in the seventh orc hive,
· in the eighth orc hive,
· in the ninth orc hive,
· in the tenth orc hive,
· in the eleventh orc hive,
· in the twelfth orc hive,
· in the unlucky orc hive,
· in the fourteenth orc hive,
· in the fifteenth orc hive,
· in the sixteenth orc hive,
· in the seventeenth orc hive, or
· in the eighteenth orc hive.

---

This editor has too many irons in the fire, and may be suddenly inactive on Wikipedia for indeterminate intervals.

Click the “+” tab or this sentence to start a new discussion.

User:SlamDiego/E. M. Washington

Someone was wondering about something in your userspace earlier - Wikipedia:Help desk#About this article - is it fake?. I think the main question's been resolved, but you might want to decategorize your userspace draft to avoid confusion! Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 12:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I've commented out the categories on that page because those categories are meant to be for mainspace articles only - when you put the article back, you remove those comment lines out to recategorise them. x42bn6 Talk Mess 12:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I just didn't have my brain in gear on that one! —SlamDiego_←T 15:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Requesting your input at Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics/Featured Article drive

Since you are a member of WikiProject Economics, I would like to direct your attention to Wikipedia: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) 15:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Marginalism

I assume you didn't mean to blank the page. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

True. Indeed, I did not blank the page. I simply used the undo function on two minor leg-lift edits; a bug in the software blanked the page. —SlamDiego_←T 03:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Marginalism, role and leg-lift

My concern with the spelling of the word "role" as "rôle" has nothing to do with you or your beliefs about the english language. My concern is that spelling role as rôle is confusing to people who have never encountered it. "rôle" is the french spelling whereas "role" is the english spelling. The article on marginalism is in english, not french. Also, I have no idea what a leg-lift edit is. --Klaser (talk) 15:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

As noted in the discussion that you claim to have read, “rôle” is English, and the preferred orthography in some authoritative dictionaries.

If you don't know what a leg-lift edit is, then don't claim in your summaries to be reverting a leg-lift edit.

—SlamDiego_←T 21:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

What is a leg-lift edit? II 08:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

A leg-lift edit is a change that is either purely horizontal (such that even the editor prefers it only because it is a change that he or she has effected), or imposes an arbitrary æsthetic. It doesn't correct an article nor add to it substantively. —SlamDiego_←T 06:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I have seen your remark about Barzilai. I did not know the criticism by Krantz (not a newcomer...). Seems interesting, independently of the reasons that motivated it! --Fioravante Patrone en (talk) 06:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Me, too. Thanks for the note. I had hunted down the Krantz bit on my own and alternately grinned and cringed reading it. I'm not letting current arguments bother me, in any case.Cretog8 (talk) 06:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

CfD closure

Thanks for letting me know - for some reason, every time I edit the page trying to fix that, yet more sections are chopped off... Am trying to do it again in stages, using "cut and paste" from other open tabs. Any ideas? Bencherlite^Talk 00:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Fear not. In the end, closing the browser and restarting proved more effective than refreshing my cache or manual edits. I'll have to watch that script in future. Thanks again. Bencherlite^Talk 00:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Because no one seems to have told you…

There's an active (though likely to be speedy closed) Request for username comments with your name on it. Just thought you ought to know. Adam McCormick (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. That's actually a response to Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Grazon. —SlamDiego_←T 20:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought as much, you may also want to have a look here Adam McCormick (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Ruud Binnekamp format fix

Yeah, sorry about that. Conversation rules still aren't entirely clear to me, possibly because there are no hard-and-fast rules? A well.Cretog8 (talk) 21:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Haha! As you were commenting here I was commenting to your talk page. (I'll check there for any replies, though I don't think that my comment demands a reply.) —SlamDiego_←T 21:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, anyway. In spite of often seeing threads go the other way (most recent comment at bottom, most indented), I like your format better, and I'll try sticking to that for a while.Cretog8 (talk) 21:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/User:SlamDiego for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackeagles (talk • contribs)

You have not properly filed. Let me know when you have followed procedure. —SlamDiego_←T 01:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, the transcluded link on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets is to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/SlamDiego, rather than to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/User:SlamDiego. It isn't particularly fair to send me to the wrong page for replying to the charge. —SlamDiego_←T 02:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I've responded to the sock puppetry case you created in regards to Blackeagles. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you. I'm very glad that someone else with a memory of Grazon's behavior (qua Grazon) has looked over the evidence. —SlamDiego_←T 20:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

FYI, I had Blackeagles' aborted and malformed attempts at SSP reports deleted as attack pages (WP:CSD#G10). IMO, a SSP report which does not actually identify any suspected socks is a cut-and-dry attack page, as it makes a serious negative accusation against the editor without any evidence whatsoever to back it up. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for letting me know. —SlamDiego_←T 20:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Price index

Thank you for your help with the math formula markup. I'm too familiar with it, so it took me awhile to get as far as I did. I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to edit the List of price index formulas without possibly conflicting edits, but I've pretty much carried out the basics of plan, so feel free to make any additions as you see fit. I was thinking of shifting the article form away from being a list and convert it to regular article with more discussion of each index (background, technical properties, usage). I was also thinking of adding the weighted version of some of the formulas. Aside from those ideas, I don't have anything else planned for the article. I was thinking of making some changes to the main price index article, but I'm going to attack some related articles first (cost of living, hedonic price index). I'll be making few edits for a couple weeks, so I thought I'd let you know my plans in case they impacted anything you had planned in this area. Thanks again for your help on these articles.--Bkwillwm (talk) 03:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Origins of neoclassical economics?

Hi. So I actually posted up that origins article (was signing was "ImpIn"), but then I completely forgot... I don't have access to that article -- would you mind sending me it at imperfectlyinformed@gmail.com? By the way, apologies again for accusing you of vagueness. II 08:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Re:Mis-identification as vandalism

Sorry. Forgive my mistake. Regards. Oda Mari (talk) 15:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Edward P. Felt & Lauren Grandcolas

I just saw that AfD you mentioned for Edward P. Felt. Thanks for mentioning it. There’s an active one for Lauren Grandcolas [1]. Steve8675309 (talk) 09:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I've expressed my opinion on the matter. —SlamDiego_←T 10:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

RE: Username

Thanks, I agree :p I actually just recently changed my username to this and was shocked it wasn't taken. --  Darth Mike  _{(Talk • Contribs)} 06:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Notable Wikipedians TfD

Hello.

As I mentioned at the TfD, I would like to suggest that we discontinue our debate at the TfD. I think it is clear by now that we will not reach agreement on this issue, and although we obviously disagree on the reasons for this, I think we can both agree that little benefit will come from continued discussion of precisely why we disagree. For the most part, I think we have said all that we can say about the template; the rest, about our conduct or intentions, is ultimately immaterial to the TfD discussion.

Since we both claimed at the TfD that the other has misrepresented our own arguments and positions, I would like to briefly address that point. If I have actually misrepresented your position, then I apologise, as that was not my intent (I recognise that it's certainly possible that I misunderstood what you had written). I also believe that you misrepresented my position, but I believe that it was not deliberate and was caused by misunderstanding.

I also apologise if my comments came across as incivil, since (at least initially) they were not written with any sarcastic intent, and I hold no ill will based on the incivility that I perceived in your comments.

I hope you have a good day. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why you persist in referring to sarcasm or to mockery, as if either were required for incivility. In any case, if you stop writing things that call for reply, then I will stop replying. —SlamDiego_←T 22:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Please do drop the illusion that you are merely responding to "things that call for reply". It was you who expressed your support for "an indefinite block of any editor who insisted that such explanations be provided" and effectively characterised my actions as "baying at the moon" well before I even typed a single word in reply to your "keep" recommendation (your comments were made on 5 September and my replies came on 8 September), and it was you who began to repeatedly orient your comments toward me and my "marked propensit[ies]" as opposed to my arguments. I have no problem with you disagreeing with me or characterising my arguments as illogical or ridiculous (it's your opinion), but let's neither of us pretend to be more Catholic than the Pope. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

There's no illusion on my part. As to the support for a block that I expressed, that was before you actually took the position in question. (By far the worst of the two possibilities.) As to my assertions about your marked propensities, these were exactly propensities to not merely to misinterpret and misrepresent what was thought by others. I wasn't not simply objecting to ad hominem, but to libel. (In other words, we have yet another of your misrepresentations here.) Now, please do not bay at the moon on my talk page. —SlamDiego_←T 00:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed your talk page from my watchlist and shall post here no more; unless it is to discuss a change to content or an administrative action carried out by me, I ask that you do the same for my talk page. Incivility and personal attacks I can handle; but life's too short to deal with hypocrisy. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Since I've never commented to your talk page, it's a bit petty for you to ask me to not to do so. Not as petty, however, as a preëmptive suggestion that I might engage in hypocrisy. —SlamDiego_←T 01:53, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Austrian economics discussion

In case you missed it, there's a discussion about Austrian economics over at the WikiProject. I haven't weighed in since I don't know much it. II | (t - c) 22:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure that the discussion can possibly be productive. On the one hand, there are a lot of nuts who embrace what they think to be Austrian School economics. On the other hand, the mainstream begin acting like shaved apes, rather than anything remotely like scientists, when it comes to confronting Austrian School economics (real or alleged). One sees that, for example, in the displacement of scientific method with appeal to consensus (real or alleged), and in the claim that there are somehow too many articles on Austrian School economists. Anyway, I have focussed my contributions on articles where the significance of current Austrian School economists is not relevant, and the historical significance of the Austrian School is readily defended by “reliable sources”. (Note that “Marginal utility” is awash in footnotes.) —SlamDiego_←T 23:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You use some sophisticated terms which leave be puzzled. I'm familiar (barely) with the difference between history and historiography, so I'll mull that. I'm not familiar wiWhen a layperson says “history”, he or she may mean what happened or may mean what is reported by historians and how it is reported; the failure to make a distinction is a source of real grief. The term “histoth the distinction between concept and conception. Can you point me towards something which can help me understand? CRETOG8(t/c) 17:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure whither I might point, so I'll just explain. A concept is truly the general idea, and nothing that is not intrinsic to that general idea; a conception has additional assumed or presumed features. Think of an American as no more than a person from America, and you're dealing with a concept; make him fat and give him a loud mouth, and you're dealing with a conception. If this conception is accepted for a concept, then it becomes impossible to talk about thin or quiet Americans; at best, one could talk about thin or quite people who are almost Americans. It's not that we want to avoid conceptions; it's that we don't want them to be presented as the general idea. The assumption or presumption of non-essential features amounts to the deliberate or accidental assumption or presumption of a theory. —SlamDiego_←T 20:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, gotcha. In principle, I'm all behind that. In practice, sounds very tricky even with the best of intentions. Anyway, I understand what you're getting at now. Thanks. CRETOG8(t/c) 00:09, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I hope I'm wrong, but I think I can feel your blood pressure rising reading your most recent comments in that discussion. If so, I think you can afford to step out of it again for a bit. CRETOG8(t/c) 17:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you (genuinely) for the note of concern. My blood pressure was higher at an earlier point than now, but I'd be dishonest if I denied that that the discourse indeed gets my back up. And I probably have made whatever productive comments I might make. —SlamDiego_←T 17:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Don't! Buy! Thai!

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Don't! Buy! Thai!, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia'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.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because 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. benjicharlton (talk) 07:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've removed the tag, but left a note on the talk page which indicates considerable flexibility about disposition of the article. —SlamDiego_←T 08:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Half the time, I don't understand what you say

I don't want to distract from the conversation over at Econ Wikiproject. I'm not trying to be funny or anything, but you should understand that about half the time, I don't understand what you're trying to say. I may be wrong, but I don't think I'm alone in this.

For example, I thought I understood what historiography meant from the context, then I looked it up in the dictionary, and found out that it's something else all together. And what does 'operationalize as little more than ventilation' mean? Do you mean that this whole discussion is useless except that we get to vent our frustration?

And come on, 'serve as a stalking horse on the other side of which is carried a bell, book, and candle'? That's two metaphors mixed together, both of them I'm unfamiliar with. I googled them, but the sentence still doesn't make sense to me.

I don't want you to take this the wrong way, I'm not trying to be rude or anything, I just want to understand what you are saying. Please keep in mind that for many of us here on Wikipedia, English is not our first language. I think that, if you want to be understood (by me at least), it would be helpful if you tried pretending that you are writing for third graders.

lk (talk) 23:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The sentence was

A statement of ostensible consensus should neither operationalize as little more than ventilation nor serve as a stalking horse on the other side of which is carried a bell, book, and candle.

so plainly the reference is to “A statement of ostensible consensus”, not to the discussion about stating the consensus. (As to the possibility that a discussion might operationalize as little more than ventilation, that really wouldn't be worrisome.)

If I were communicating with third graders, then I wouldn't interact with them as people who ought to be determining the policy for an encyclopedia that was supposed to be authoritative and pitched at adults. And I sure wouldn't want to pretend that I was merely their equal when it came to such a task. Perhaps more importantly, I'd have to write at great length to say the same things that I've said so far, and there'd be every chance that the audience would simply get lost in the sea of words.

Given how unrestrained your pronouncements have been, I'm already unhappy with the extent to which you need things explained to you. —SlamDiego_←T 01:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Chalkware

In response to your message, the link provided was not directed towards shopping promotions, but instead at the history of the pieces and also as an example of how chalkware is used in modern times. VFA is the only company that is using this Victorian technique and those who are interested in researching that matter should be permitted to see the links that were provided along with images of the stages of development. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LukeMV (talk • contribs) 18:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I visited that site before removing the link. It was essentially just a promotion for that firm. —SlamDiego_←T 20:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

more so than http://www.pinholeresource.com/? VFA is the largest chalkware companies, and is one of the last three made-in america christmas manufacturers. certainly, that has merit on its own from a historical perspective, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.131.167 (talk) 22:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not defending the use of pinholeresource.com. It's not as spammy as the VFA link, but I wouldn't restore it if it were deleted.

It really doesn't matter here whether VFA is important; if the reference itself is essentially advertising, it isn't acceptable.

Nonetheless, I would note that VFA hasn't met the “notability” requirements of Wikipedia, which is why an article on it was deleted. Please review these guidelines, as what one might ordinarily regard as establishing notability doesn't necessarily establish “notability” (hence my habit of using quotation marks).

I think that the issue is this: You want Wikipedia to use what you think to be the best references, but being the best or even the only reference isn't sufficient. Indeed, we could probably find a case where you and I agreed that a reference $R_{1}$ was the best reference, and one that we would use if we were determining policy, and that $R_{2}$ was something that we wouldn't use at all. But, under Wikipedia policy, the former might be unacceptable and the latter deemed suitable. Which is not to say that I'd use the VFA reference if it were merely up to me, but to say that whatever gets used has to conform to the policy on “reliable sources” (which, in turn, is part of the infrastructure for the “notability” requirements of Wikipedia). —SlamDiego_←T 23:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for reorganizing Phi Kappa Psi!

Dispite our rocky introduction, I am glad that we are now working together to resolve this issue.Tmpafford (talk) 22:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Orienting one's words

Hello SlamDiego. I was just curious why you think "British" English is in a worse state than American English? The word "orientate" seems to be okay when it's used properly - and Mirriam Webster (that's a US dictionary, right?) seems to accept it. :) Wikidea 11:39, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

British English is in worse shape because it has accepted more thoughtless cruft. We might argue over whether the word “orientate” can be properly used (the concerns of the Merriam-Webster not being confined to proper English), but in British English it is widely accepted with the general meaning of orient; for example, one can find it being used thus and without irony by editors at the Oxford University Press. There is at least some utility in the narrow definition in the M-W, as “orient” long ago broadened in meaning so as not to plainly refer to pointing east; but “orientate” with a broad definition arises as a mindless back-formation. —SlamDiego_←T 12:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, OUP is owned by Rupert Murdoch now, who's American! Anywayz, I'm only kidding around. I ain't gonna emphasize more problems with Americans, or yo might think I'm balmy and kick my ass. :) Wikidea 17:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm a hard-core American, and might yell at you but would never get violent over speech acts. —SlamDiego_←T 03:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

marxist.org

yes yes I did. good catch. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Paper

I read the paper. In a former life I was an academic (In the UK) and therefore I am familiar with the standards expected in scholarly works. That paper was... eye-opening... or to put it another way, I'd fail an undergraduate who cited that much from wikipedia. --Cameron Scott (talk) 00:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Ron Paul

Ron Paul has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured quality. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. --Andrew Kelly (talk) 05:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Corrections

Jest dune watt eye can. Chris the speller (talk) 15:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Please stop your grudge and personal attacks against me.

You've got a serious grudge against me SlamDiego, you are mad at me for previous arguments and that is why you have returned to a solved problem over a pathetically partisan accusation by someone who declared Obama a fascist, the issue was solved, but you opened it up again to start a fight. I may have disagreements with you and think that you are mistakened, but I have not slandered you as you have done with me. You say I talk too much, well sorry, I'll try to talk less, you've said this in an offensive manner, you have accused me of editing with bad faith, you are angry with me because I disagree with you and thus you see EVERYTHING I post now as something to be mistrusted, that is very bad behaviour. Besides I have agreed to a compromise with you concerns that fascism is an "authoritarian or totalitarian nationalist ideology" with a subsequent description of how fascists aspire to form an autocratic, single-party state led by a dictator. Your concern over authoritarian nationalist regimes not being included is justified by taking account of Franco's Spain and other states with affinities to fascist leaders like Mussolini. My concern with "authoritarianism" alone was that we would get people saying "George W. Bush is a fascist because of the Patriot Act", but as long as characteristics of the authoritarianism are shown, I don't have problems. Your concerns were legitimate, they have now been taken into account, I hope your grudge against me will not continue.--129.100.249.17 (talk) 22:50, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

First, I don't know who you are, since this message is signed with an IP number, though I can guess from your use of verbosity as a substitute for decent argument. Second, I don't have a personal grudge against the person whom I guess you to be — I just hate the absolutely lousy arguments that he uses. If he doesn't want me or anyone else to pick apart his arguments, then he should make sure that they are more genuinely logical, instead of trying to hide their inadequacies by using lots of words. —SlamDiego_←T 04:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

It is R-41 who said this, you are very angry at me and you should not "hate" anything anyone does. You have been very offensive to me, and I am considering reporting you for personal attacks. I am not the best at speaking, and I may speak to long, but you are harping on that to discredit me, and you have a constant distrust about everything I do. You opened up a finished discussion on the Fascism page about whether Barrack Obama was a fascist, you posted in front of a follow-up remark by another user, and you did it to attack me. I will attempt to be more concise with what I say. Now stop this aggressive behaviour or I will report you for making personal attacks against me.--R-41 (talk) 01:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Your theories about my motives are childish and incorrect speculation; your assertion that I should not hate anything that anyone does couldn't withstand the mildest of philosophical tests. By all means, go ahead and try reporting me for personal attacks; what I have attacked is needless verbosity and transparent illogic. I'd be very amused if you reported me for personal attacks, given that my remarks that you have been both illogical and needlessly verbose have been demonstrably accurate (notice how in the above message you give your theory of my motives three times, and threaten to report me twice?), whereas your personal attacks (in the form of theories about my motives) cannot be supported. Regardless of whether the discussion on Obama was opened or closed (and I've seen no evidence that you convinced any of your opponents that they were wrong), it was hardly ancient, and the statement to which I objected was an equivocation; if it closed discussion, then it did so inappropriately. Don't just try to be concise; do it. —SlamDiego_←T 04:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

So what did it get you? Now, as the admin advised you, focus on content. In particular, let's have content that is supported by evidence and logical, and that isn't needlessly long-winded. —24.255.35.102 (talk) 03:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You aren't helping matters. Please just let it drop.-Andrew c ^[talk] 03:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd be more than happy to let this drop, if you (or some other admin) would tell R-41 that he doesn't get a pass to insult other editors (even as he complains that they are engaged in personal attacks). The next time that he violates WP:AGF by claiming that I'm acting based on a grudge or somesuch, I will post a notice to Wikiquette alerts. —SlamDiego_←T 05:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Hamfisted notation at “Quantity theory of money”

Thanks for clarifying & fixing this! It wasn’t rendering at all correctly for me (off in mid air), but I’m not familiar with this notation: I knew the TeX, but not where to put it. Thanks again.

Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Reply to "2008 December" on Talk:Led by truth

SlamDiego,

I read your message on my Talk page and noticed your removal of the {{fact}} tag which I had inserted in the Phi Kappa Psi article. (Your subsequent changes to your message were a little hard to keep up with.)

I also noticed that you repaired a broken link in my last edit. Thank you for that.

The statement in the article for which I did not find adequate verification after carefully reviewing its cited article, and subsequently reviewing the article cited further down the paragrph, is the first sentence of the "University of Virginia" paragraph—

"It is alleged by the state of Virginia that, on the night of 4 October 1984, a member of the University of Virginia chapter of Phi Kappa Psi drugged seventeen-year-old Elizabeth Schimpf, and that on the morning of 5 October 1984, William Beebe and members of the fraternity gang-raped Miss Schimpf."

FIRST, since there is no allegation in the cited stories that that William Beebe was a member of the Phi Kappa Psi Fraternity, this fact which should be made obvious in the preceding statement.

There is no statement in the March 15, 2007, Washington Post article by Courteney Stuart that the State of Virginia or the prosecutor believed that William Beebe was a member of the Phi Kappa Psi Fraternity. Nor is there a statement anywhere else in this article that Beebe was a member of that fraternity. Rather he was identified as "a student she didn't know".

Similarly there is not statement that he was a member of the fraternity in the March 15, 2007, Hook story by Courteny Stuart.

SECOND, there is no statement in the cited stories that Elizabeth Schimpf Sequrro had been drugged or was believed to have been by the Deputy Commonwealth Attorney.

There is no statement in the the March 15, 2007, Washington Post article by Courteney Stuart that the State of Virginia or the prosecutor or the investigators believed that Securro had been drugged. In fact there is no claim anywhere in this article that Securro was drugged by anyone. Reporter Kristen Gelineau only implied, but did not say, that based upon the way Securro recounted the events 21 years later she might have been drugged or she might just have had too much to drink.

There is no mention of drugs in the March 15, 2007, Hook story by Courteny Stuart.

THIRD, there was no statement in the cited stories that Elizabeth Schimpf Sequrro had been gang raped by members of the fraternity or was believed to have been by the Deputy Commonwealth Attorney.

In the the March 15, 2007, Washington Post article by Courteney Stuart even the alleged belief by the unnamed investigators was not that Securro was gang raped by Beebe and members of the fraternity. It was that she was gang raped by someone. Beebe was not accused nor were Phi Kappa Psi fraternity members accused of gang raping her.

In the March 15, 2007, Hook story by Courteny Stuart there was no statement that a gang rape had occurred or was believed to have been by the state or the prosecutor, nor was there a statement that Elizabeth Schimpf Sequrro had been raped more than once or was believed to have been by the the Deputy Commonwealth Attorney.

What Courteny Stuart stated was that "...during the plea hearing, Deputy Commonwealth's Attorney Claude Worrell [claimed]: "Other sexual assaults occurred that night by other individuals in that fraternity,"-not a gang rape and not against Elizabeth Schimpf Sequrro.

FOURTH, the use of the phrase "by the state of Virginia" is misleading.

That phrase indicates an official act made in the name of the state by a government official authorized to do so.

Instead what I found in the cited Washington Post story was that reporter Kristen Gelineau reported in one place that the prosecutor Claude Worrell stated that unnamed investigators believed something. An alleged belief by unnamed investigators does not constitute an allegation by the State of Virginia.

In the March 15, 2007, Hook story reporter Courteny Stuart states that Deputy Commonwealth Attorney Claude Worrell "declines comment on those other assaults, except to say an investigation is ongoing." This does not constitute an allegation by the State of Virginia.

A fact not included in the article is that a year and a half later the state of Virginia has evidently not made any allegations against any of the chapter members.

Although there was a lot of innuendo in the Washington Post article it appears to me that the Post was fairly careful about what they said about this incident. It is my understanding of Wikipedia that innuendo has no place in its encyclopedia articles.

Clearly the statement that you or someone else has put into this Wikipedia article is not fully supported by these citations.

The allegation in this statement affect the lives of living people—the men who were brothers of that fraternity chapter at that time—and it affects the organization as well.

You are probably aware that if you insist on publishing unsubstantiated, harmful, allegations you risk subjecting yourself and Wikipedia to possible legal action with potentially severe consequences.

I believe that the wisest course of action is to find citations that verify the statement as written, which evidently is unlikely, or to correct the statement.

The statement should be removed or modified immediately, and left out or modified until an appropriate citation is found, if that is possible.

If you are unwilling to make that correction immediately, please replace the {{fact}} tag that you removed.

Thank you. Led by truth (talk)

1. The assertion that you flagged doesn't claim that Beebe was a fraternity member (though the words of the State of Virginia actually imply that he was), and this distinction has been discussed earlier. Neither sloppy reading nor attacking straw men will work for you.
2. Even were alcohol not a drug, it is disingenuous to read the article at MSNBC and that of 12 Dec 2006 at the Hook as not reporting a claim that she was given a drugged drink.
3. It is likewise disingenuous to read the Worrell remarks as not confirming Schimpf-Seccuro's claim that she was gang-raped. If you want to claim that the state is claiming that other people were also raped, I suggest that you find supportive citations.
4. The phrase “by the state of Virginia” is perfectly standard. The Deputy Commonwealth Attorney was explaining why the office of the Commonwealth Attorney had allowed someone against whom there was a damning case to enter into a plea bargain.

Your actions in deleting a relevant citation and spuriously tagging that section were transparent; you're just the latest in a series of guys who have tried to censor that article. You have no actual recovery here that doesn't entail your refraining from vandalizing that section. The principal result of any attempt to wikilaywer the matter will be to draw more eyes to the article; and is likely to get you blocked much as would your overt vandalism. —SlamDiego_←T 00:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Price indices

Dear SlamDiego:

I'm the anonymous user (call me Antonio, I'm not enough committed to Wikipedia as to have my own account, I know this is a handicap here) who wrote this. Reading your huge list af Austrian-economics arguments against mine astonished me, being myself a strong supporter of that school of thought. So I think we have some common premises to start arguing with.

You say I'm "making unrecognized “simplifying” assumptions that are here inappropriate". But my first assumptions you criticise are all but unreckognized; I clearly state "provided there's no change in relative prices and supply". I'm not implying that there's no such a change actually; the proposition is there only for the sake of the argument. I think there are enough people out there assuming the long-run neutrality of money to make it worth to start with this.

But well, the main point is: given changes in the relative prices of the goods involved, and the subsequent changes in the consumer patterns of spending, that does not guarantee the Laspeyres index to be greater than the Paasche index. It will depend on the particular reaction of the consumer to such a change in relative prices and the purchasing power (i.e., elasticities, although I acknowledge it sounds mathletical). But this reaction cannot be determined a priori. Under certain circumstances, Paasche index could offer a higher result than Laspeyres index; in fact it will, provided that a greater proportion of the goods whose prices rose faster is now consumed. This is not "expressing the assumption that people behaved atypically", but only acknowledging that, from a priori point of view, one cannot discard certain rational behaviours.

Well, I think I have exceeded myself writing... I only was surprised by the statement "systematically overstates inflation", and thought: "well, it would depend on the consumers' particular reaction..." Anyway, after reading a lot about it, I don't think this matters so much, as it really holds than Laspeyres index usually draws as a result a higher figure than Paasche index. But well, it has nothing to do with calculation attempting to measure the ideal increase in prices, using baskets with the same utility as the original, and so on, one can find when start studying this matters...

Kind regards.

P.S: Concernig my use of the term abstruse you make fun of, I'm sorry if it just makes my text even abstruser, or makes it sound sardonic. Of course, English is not my native language, but I should have guessed abstruse sounds as pedantic in English as it does in Spanish. But, you know, one starts writing an Encyclopedia and just misses the point... --83.49.181.184 (talk) 19:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

First of all, the Austrian School tends to reject the use of price indices altogether, seeing prices as ranks but not true measures. The remarks in the article, on the other hand, assume that these indices are measures, and the analysis is very much in the mainstream. So your reference to “Austrian-economics arguments” is grossly incompetent.

Second, no one claimed that you didn't recognize some of your assumptions. However, the fact that you presumed that relative prices could be unchanged in a typical scenario entails assumptions that you did not recognize.

Third, pretty much everyone much involved in the writing of the article knows that it will depend upon elasticities — even those who don't know the formal definition of “elasticity” know that it's a question of how consumers respond — but there are typical elasticities, and the article advisedly and explicitly referred and refers to the typical responses.

As to your use of the word “abstruse”, I have no problem with it. Rather, I have a problem with your getting confused by your own invocation of a technical measure. —SlamDiego_←T 21:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for File:Mickey's Twice upon a Christmas.jpg}

Thank you for uploading File:Mickey's Twice upon a Christmas.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 17:14, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Persons interested in this matter might read my remarks at File talk:Mickey's Twice upon a Christmas.jpg. —SlamDiego_←T 17:26, 27 December 2008 (UTC)