User talk:SlamDiego/Archive 16
| 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. |
| Click the “+” tab or this sentence to start a new discussion. |
St. Petersburg paradox
editGood point about the origin being a fraught term – your fix is correct – thanks!
Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 01:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- Re: Diminishing marginal utility and risk aversion – oh dear. Utility makes sense without any reference to risk (how many pies should I eat? Oh, I’m stuffed! – and as discussed in Marginal_utility#Revival, even if some historical sources used it in the context of risk – presumably this causes the confusion) and, as you say, one’s utility function can imply something about one’s risk preferences, but they shouldn’t be conflated.
- Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 13:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
S'pose I'll chuck this on here, in case you're not Wiki-stalking my page
editThat's your interpretation of what I posted. My actual intent, which you might have determined, had you bothered to ask -- or, rather, bothered to think -- was to suggest a possible addition to the article.
Having glanced at your user page, I think it's pretty clear which of us is engaging in the "ideological rant." It is unfortunate that my suggestion seems to have offended your Misesian sensibilities, but I think I'm entitled to make a suggestion without having my motives questioned out of hand, even if that suggestion happens to conflict with your own market fundamentalist ideology.
Sadly for you, Wikipedia is a collective endeavor, which means that we as individuals must accept one another's presence.
(The fact that you quickly archived the talk page might lead me to speculate as to your motives, were I that sort of person. It's almost as if, oh, I dunno... it's almost like you didn't want anyone to read my suggestion, lest they consider it. But I'm sure it was routine cleanup. Yeah, that's it....) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.228.24 (talk) 12:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- The fact that you could and did recast what you originally posted as theory for inclusion doesn't change the fact that it was originally a rant. Nor is it the responsibility of the rest of us to ponder how we might extract the wheat of edit suggestions from the chaff of a rant, but in this case it was already evident that any suggestions corresponding to the content of the rant would be outside of the proper scope of the article (one could not much less absurdly have a presentation on the Resurrection in the article on Chomsky) and would fail the prohibition against “orginal research”.
- As I told you in my original note to your talk page, you'd be permitted a certain amount of ideological ranting on your user page (if you had one); interpretting my user page as an ideological rant won't avail you much. And I don't use articles or article talk pages to launch ideological rants.
- The fact that Wikipedia is a collective endeavour doesn't make it simply a free-for-all BBS. Your presence will have to be accepted only so long as your behavior stays within limits. If you go back to ranting on article talk pages, or if you push “original research” disruptively, then you may be blocked.
- As a simple exercise in logic, the rant could be (and indeed was) removed without archiving the talk page (removal at 22:21, archiving fifteen minutes later), so your theory of my motive for archiving fails. I archived the talk page because (other than your rant), it was nothing but moribund discussion, a large share of which had been someone else's ranting (unfortunately harder to excise from comments that were within policy), which ranting could have encouraged others to mistake ranting there (or on other article talk pages) as acceptable practice.
- I have no reason to fear your thoughts recast as suggested theory for incorporation into the article (until and unless someone pushes them disruptively), because (again) they fall outside of the proper scope of the article and fail the guidelines on “original research”.
- —SlamDiego←T 16:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- I guess we can keep it on my page now, if it's all the same to you, and if it continues. At least until my IP changes. I wasn't sure if you'd see my reply there is all. Good evening to you! 70.105.228.24 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC).
spam journal
editGood catch, I'll keep my eyes open - the news page for that site is fairly odd - are the advisory board his family members? --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
- Just a further word on this - I downloaded the (now available) first issues - as an academic journal - trash doesn't begin to cover it. That journal is *never* going to be notable. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:26, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
AFD
editThanks for directing me to the right instructions. But are you saying I should follow those instructions now, or did I already screw up the process so badly that I should just leave the AFD page as it is? --Rinconsoleao (talk) 15:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
False warnings
editDo not give me false warnings again. I was fixing links (which you would know if you bothered to check) and just made sure the rest of the article matched since a article isn't supposed to have a mix of both American and British English. TJ Spyke 16:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
- I had checked, and your description here and in your edit summaries of what you were doing was and is false. The article “Nitre (disambiguation)” was consistent in its use of British spellings until you changed those, and its link wasn't broken before you “fix”ed. Finding a few American spellings in a sea of British spellings in the other articles does not justify what you did; you should have rendered the few in the style of the many, or left the article alone. Again, if you persist in such edits, then you will be blocked. —SlamDiego←T 17:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Request for mediation not accepted
edit
|
A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/The Independent.
|
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.