User talk:SlamDiego/Archive 18

; 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.

Contents

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

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

Annie Jr.[edit]

Annie Jr. has notability in that it is a separate production written for young performers.Trufflesthedog (talk) 00:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the “notability” guidelines. The reason that I keep putting “notability” in quotation marks is that Wikipedia has its own notion thereof. —SlamDiego_←T 03:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Academy Award for Best Picture[edit]

Hey. I don't know if it is one of your intrests, but I wanted a quick answer. What do you think of that: [1]? I think the nominees are important, and that someone here should to reconstruct that. --Shirooosh (talk) 08:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that you're right, but I don't need to fight even more wack people on Wikipedia. —SlamDiego_←T 09:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ooo... But can you ask someone here to do it? I don't want to get invovl with that either. --Shirooosh (talk) 09:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When last I looked, some else had already reverted the change. As for my asking some third party to involve him- or herself, I don't interact on Wikipedia with anyone whom I know to have such interests. —SlamDiego_←T 09:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, thanks a lot! --Shirooosh (talk) 09:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-standard spelling[edit]

Hi. I see you have reverted some of my corrections in the Marginalism article. Why do you consider "Aristoteles" a correct spelling for Aristotle? It is the transliteration from Greek, not the English form of the name. And "markèd" with an accent? And I agree that "rôle" is more etimologically correct than "role", but the latter seems to be the more ususal form (see [2]). I'd also be glad to understand your use of the dieresis in "whereïn" and the hyphen in "work-out" used as a verb. Last thing, as an Italian I can assure you that the preferred form of the name of Cesare, Marquis of Beccaria is it:Cesare Beccaria. Thanks, Goochelaar (talk) 18:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First principle here: Don't correct that which is not wrong. “Aristoteles” is increasingly used by English-language classics texts (exactly because it is relatively accurate as a transliteration). The grave accent in English may be uncommon, but is a correct way of indicating that an otherwise unpronounced syllable will be pronounced without stress. The spelling “rôle” may be more unusual, but it remains the preferred spelling in many dictionaries, and in any event is not wrong. My principal concern with “whereïn” was that you changed it to “where” (rather than to “wherein”), but the function of a d1æresis in English (as in many languages) is to indicate that there is no diphthong. Hyphens serve to indicate that the hyphenated words are more closely associated one with the other than with the words that surround them. As to Cesare Beccaria, I reproduced the form used by the source (Pribram); given how wikification works, unless this form is wrong, I don't see much reason to change it. —SlamDiego_←T 06:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad to see that there is someone else who knows about dieresis, hyphens and accents (grave or circumflex), but I still do not agree with some of your spelling choices (and I'd like very much to see a dictionary adopting them). However, I shall not correct them again. Goochelaar (talk) 10:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of one of these, “rôle”, some dictionary citations were brought out by an editor during one discussion. But, for some of the others, looking for a dictionary citation is like looking for a dictionary citation with particular punctuation; the diacrital marks aren't considered integral to the spelling of the word. Finding an appearance of the use in literature provides a rather quick-and-dirty proof of legitimacy, but the real proof is simply in finding a “reliable source” the underlying rules for their use, which finding is feasible in each of these cases. But you seem to know those rules. :-/ —SlamDiego_←T 11:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SAP AfDs[edit]

Hi there, I'd just like to apologise for adding a couple of extra articles into this AfD after you'd already commented - thought I'd be quick enough to sneak those two in before anyone saw the discussion, but it looks like you were quick and on the ball that night! I apologise if it seemed to give the impression that I was trying to make it look like you'd !voted on those articles when you hadn't; no such impression was intended. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I did not think that you were attempting to deceive the closer. I am going to explicitly state that at the discussion. —SlamDiego_←T 08:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's very kind of you, thankyou. Happy editing! Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zipeg[edit]

The AfD is from 2007. The article was recreated in 2008, apparently by someone without knowledge of the AfD and never deleted as a recreation of deleted content. Skomorokh restored the history behind the new article, an uncontroversial practice. Given the lapse of time and the current state of the article, I am not prepared to re-delete under the authority of the AfD, but have no opinion about listing the article again to see if consensus has changed or not. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weird. There is still something screwy here. Maybe it's minor. —SlamDiego_←T 12:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As it turned-out, the tag placed by Skomorokh was linked to the old AfD discussion, rather than to the latest. —SlamDiego_←T 13:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch! ;-)[edit]

Well, it happens! Many thanks for the message. --Fioravante Patrone en (talk) 15:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category DUH![edit]

It was a joke, of course, but what would be wrong in creating that type of tag to put on the bottom of a page? It's not really vandalism, nor is it uncivil; it would be a way to comment on articles that shouldn't have been written in the first place. Still, I'd probably get treated by an administrator to the (somewhat erotic sounding) "series of escalating blocks". Mandsford (talk) 23:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Austrian econ for dummies[edit]

I'm curious if there's good reading on Austrian economics for non-Austrians. If there's not, and Austrian econ is really valuable, then it seems like that's a gap which should be filled.

There's several things about presentation of Austrianism which turn me off-any of which could be due to my ignorance because my being turned-off has left me quite ignorant.

I don't care for "schools of thought" in general, and Austrianism seems to be wrapped up in itself.
Related is that I want the economics, not the history of economic thought. I want the idea, and don't much care its pedigree.
Likewise, I'm ambivalent about math-rather, I think math shouldn't be a bone of contention. Most economists agree math is vital to some good economics, but can also lead people astray when they concentrate too much on the math. I don't think that's a point of useful argument, the place to argue is case-by-case whether someone's doing good economics or silly math tricks.
I want economic analysis, not anarcho-capitalism. Lots of economic analysis leads to results of efficiency for free markets, and that's dandy, but when I see Austrian economics it's often hard to tell that "free markets good" is a result and not an axiom.

I suppose I could try to fill this gap in my knowledge by reading stuff from the Review of Austrian Economics. But it would be awfully nice if there were the equivalent of a serious textbook. Any such luck?

(As an aside, in my thoroughly mainstream applied-micro grad school, "The Use of Knowledge in Society" was one of the first pieces of required reading.) CRETOG8(t/c) 18:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you've touched upon some real problems. A large part of them result from how Rothbard and his fans represent his particular work.

I don't know of a way of getting to the material of value from the Austrian School without wading through a lot that is quite problematic for one reason or another. At one point, I did some of that wading; but now-a-days I rarely seek-out Austrian School stuff as such, expecting that the marginal product of any given reading will be low. I couldn't say whether Review of Austrian Economics is worth following because I've never followed it; certainly my own work hasn't recently led me to seek-out any article in it.

Von Mises really represents a sub-school of the Austrian School (and Rothbard a sub-school of that sub-school). But, because v Mises was convinced that he'd got everything right, he thought it quite appropriate to simply treat his conclusions as the Austrian School results. What I'd really like to see is a treatment that doesn't make such a presumption.

None-the-less, the closest thing of which I know to a good text-book on the Austrian School would be v Mises's Human Action. It is especially important to bear in mind that his epistemology (whatever one may make of it) is not intrinsic to the school; some of his a priori propositions simply need to be regarded as axiomata (and the rest then as deductions from those axiomata).

If you'd like to see an example of what I consider to be the sort of work that “Austrians” should do, then look at McCulloch's “The Austrian Theory of the Marginal Use and of Ordinal Marginal Utility”, Zeitschrift für Nationalökonomie 37 (1977). McCulloch (vita) is an example of an economist well-informed both by the Austrian School and by the mainstream. He's unafraid to present heresy, as in “Misintermediation and Macroeconomic Fluctuations”, in Journal of Monetary Economics 8 (1981), which built a different business cycle theory from Austrian School components. —SlamDiego_←T 07:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's a finite number of pointers I can follow. A good project sometime might be to write up a guide to the Austrian analytical toolset without all the baggage. Well beyond me for the time being, brand new crisis today. Oof!. Anyway, thanks! CRETOG8(t/c) 19:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfC at WT:ECON[edit]

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) 15:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

McCulloch & mainstream[edit]

Math is hard. So I haven't fully grokked McCulloch's paper (referred to here) yet, and certainly not its full implications compared to mainstream consumer theory. As it stands, though, I'm not completely convinced by your argument that mainstream analysis is somehow less-than-ordinal. I assume you're referring to the "intrinsically ordinal" property, that it's possible to have preferences which defy any cardinal numbering, as opposed to the "ordinal" which we're used to that preferences can be numbered, but those numbers are only meaningful up to a monotonic transformation.

I mean, it appears to be true, but how does it matter, and how does it relate to Austrians' criticism of cardinality in mainstream thought? Here's two things I'm left wondering (which maybe I'll resolve if/when I give it enough thought, just mulling here). First, is the difference purely due to lumpiness? McCulloch does say that if infinitesimal quantities are allowed, then cardinality happens in the Austrian framework as well. Second, is it because we're looking at orderings of different sets? The Austrians are ordering (sets of wants) vs. the orthodox ordering of (consumption bundles).

O yeah, and I don't see what this has to do with a total ordering--making the ordering economically sensible will put extra restrictions on it of some kind, I'm not sure that being non-intrinsically ordinal is a particularly important restriction.

It's a neat paper, just trying to figure out how it really matters. (Plus, as someone who's pretty sure my preferences are neither complete nor transitive, I have a love-hate relationship with this kind of foundational theory.) CRETOG8(t/c) 09:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not claiming that the mainstream model is less than ordinal; I am claiming that it is more than purely ordinal. From the perspective of logic/math, an ordering to which a quantification may be applied is a special case of one to which an ordering may be applied.

There's a difference between a proposition that the Austrian School is wrong about $X$ and that the Austrian School is wrong about the importance of $X$ . If someone wants to claim that the Austrian School imputes too much practical significance to the fact that the weak quantification of mainstream economics is not purely ordinal, then he or she still has (as far as I know) a viable (if unproven) proposition. But let's locate the errors and tenability correctly.

It is not discreteness (“lumpiness”) that matters here, but finitude. A total ordering of even countably infinitely many things would be isomorphic to the integers and therefore, obviously, a quantification could be fit to it. (McCulloch explicitly notes that continuity (uncountable infinitude) implies the possibility of fitting a quantification. I don't remember off the top of my head what he says about countable infinitude. But I presume that you really just care about the mathematical properties, rather than about whether McCulloch noted them.)

The nature of the sets isn't important to the mathematics here. (McCulloch grabbed the math itself from “Intuitive Probability on Finite Sets” by Kraft, Pratt, and Seidenberg.) Really, the fundamental ordering for decision theory would be of states of the world, and ordering wants and ordering consumption bundles only persist because they can amount to the same thing.

Total ordering of the relevant set is a shared assumption of each approach; if the relevant set is not totally ordered, then it isn't appropriate to speak or write even of ordinal utility. (When neither

X_{m}

nor

X_{n}

is weakly preferred to the other, the marginal utility is undefined.) —SlamDiego_←T 15:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really want to dig at this, not for the sake of WP, but for my own curiosity. It'll have to wait, however. It does bug me that (for instance in Table 4) the "intrinsically ordinal" preferences over sets of wants gives rise to "essentially cardinal" preferences over commodity bundles (as in Table 6 & Figure 2). I might just be missing the point, but maybe I'll catch it another time. Thanks for pointing out the neat paper. CRETOG8(t/c) 17:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I thought that the inquiry was more for reasons separate from Wikipedia. If, after you've gone over the article, you have abiding questions, feel free to raise them with me, though I don't carry the details of that article in my head, and might have to read parts of it again myself. And, for what it's worth, I don't think that McCulloch's vernacular is felicitous, especially not the terms “intrinsically ordinal” and “essentially cardinal”. —SlamDiego_←T 18:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation[edit]

I am ready to join mediation, but to make sure that it works, we must all be prepared to be flexible in our positions. I just want to tell you that I'm prepared to forget our past disputes, and enter the process with an open mind. Also, in case it wasn't obvious, the statement I made about ignoring troll baiting wasn't directed at you. LK (talk) 05:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've a fable for you:

There was a gathering of the representatives from the US an from the USSR. On the first day, the Soviet delegates moved that the wives of the Americans should be given to the Russians for their pleasure. The Americans stormed-out. The next day, the Soviet delegates proposed that half the wives of American delegates be given to them for their pleasure. Seeing that the Soviets were willing to compromise, the Americans joined them in supporting the resolution.

Okay. I'm not a delegate of the US gov't, and you won't get a Soviet compromise out of me. Mediation would establish an orderly process, in which the difference between actual policy and what you assert to be policy will be plainly exhibited. If you persisted after that, then (as I remarked) the door to the next stage of dispute resolution would be opened.

As to the remark about trolls, I didn't read it as suggesting that I were a troll. —SlamDiego_←T 05:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation for WikiProject Economics Guidelines[edit]

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 Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia:Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Wikipedia: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) 07:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation accepted[edit]

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/WikiProject Economics Guidelines.

For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 12:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/WikiProject Economics Guidelines[edit]

Apologies for this, but I forgot to add the caveat on statement length that they should be under 250 words or less. Can you make sure your statements conforms to this? Sorry again, I was meant to say it but I was in a rush when I was posting. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 15:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re: threading[edit]

It's acceptable in this instance... I'm OK with an indent or two, but not a whole discussion inside another's section. Xavexgoem (talk) 15:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where would one expect that thread to end naturally? I'm quite sure that John Quiggin would want to argue against any demonstration that he were fundamentally mistaken, and that his counter-argument would be flawed, &c. —SlamDiego_←T 16:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative mediation?[edit]

Hello--There are various issues with the dispute and mediation, but one which is striking to me is the trouble between you and LK. From my perspective, you are both good-faith editors, and likely have not-too-different goals, but with incompatible communication styles and built-up distrust. I don't know that's correct, that's just what it looks like from here. Given that, and that you two were the prime drivers of the debate, it's possible a mediation consisting of just you two would be valuable? CRETOG8(t/c) 14:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite correct that we're the two prime drivers of the debate. But, ex hypothesi, each of us would reject your hypothesis; the only means of resolution would be for one or both to have some flash of enlightenment. And Mediation is supposed to deal with content issues, not with incompatible communication styles nor with built-up distrust per se. But you should question at least part of your hypothesis, based upon whose mental model of the other seems to work, and whose does not. You might make that judgment not by attempting to reconstruct each mental model and then judging it against your own models, but by seeing which modeler seemed to have trouble preparing for the other, and which did not. —SlamDiego_←T 15:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Econ Mediation[edit]

What is there even to mediate about? I'm not sure this is a good case for mediation. Gigs (talk) 21:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are editors who believe that we should have guidelines, editors who believe that we should not have guidelines, and editors who believe that we should have guidelines only if there is meaningful assurance that the guidelines will not be a camel's nose.
There are editors who believe that policy supports a claim that, in economics, academic and peer-reviewed publications are the most “reliable” sources; there are editors who reject this claim about policy. There is at least one editor who believes that it should be accepted that, in economics, academic and peer-reviewed publications are the most “reliable” sources even if this claim is not supported by policy; there is at least one editor who doubts the proposition has any real defense.
There are editors who believe that, in assessing the weight to be given different views, academic and peer-reviewed publications should count for more than do other “reliable” sources; there are editors who reject this claim.

Now, you may think that the answer to each of these questions is pretty obvious; so do I. But there are editors who think that a different answer from each of mine is obvious, and there are editors who think that a different answer from each of yours is obvious. In fact, you and I might each think that the other is obviously wrong. Nobody gets to just play the Obviousness Card. So we need a Mediation either to convert somebody, or perhaps to demonstrate that there is a disruptive element to the conduct of some or all of the editors in dispute. —SlamDiego_←T 22:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note[edit]

Hi. Just wanted to let you know that I removed your post-closure comment on the List of disbarred lawyers AfD. Cheers, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I was self-reverting even as you did that. I had not seen that the discussion had been closed and archived. —SlamDiego_←T 19:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting[edit]

Would simply mentioning that I'm quoting a message be sufficient to include it on my talk page? Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 01:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you did it in a way that made it very clear that you were quoting, then sure. A very useful template is {{Quotation}}. You could enter

As Stevens said {{Quotation|Moose are cool!}}

and this would come out as

As Stevens said

Moose are cool!

—SlamDiego_←T 01:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. I'll make the change. Thanks. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 01:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Duck filmography[edit]

Yes, the rate is very slow, but it is ongoing. What is the purpose of removing them? It only makes it harder for the articles to be created. See also Wikipedia:Red link. Garion96 (talk) 19:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it does make it somewhat harder for the articles to be creäted, but (slightly or otherwise), that's not the only thing that it does. The article would be awash in redlinks if we wikified each film (as some have sought to do), and that makes it harder for the non-editing user. People reäct to red as a special color of danger, need to be alert, &c, and the mind is repeated brought to a stop by that color. Our first priority should be serving the reader qua reader, not the editor qua editor. If a different color had been chosen for links to unfound articles, then I'd probably be in strong agreement with you. —SlamDiego_←T 20:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, feel free to ask for a different colour in the village pump. Meanwhile, besides your preference over the colour, there is no good reason to remove these links. Please read wp:red link and also Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-01-31/Orphans, removing red links is hurting Wikipedia. I also remove red links quite often, but always when the article really should not be created, which is not the case with this filmography list. Garion96 (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about an arbitrary preference on my part; it's about serving the reader. And you're not citing policy; you're citing a guideline.

Orphanage can be addressed without making articles harder to read. —SlamDiego_←T 20:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What difference does it make whether it's a policy or guideline? Who cares. But yes, since you go against an established "guideline" it does seems to be an arbitrary preference on your part. We have a guideline, a report where it has been established that removing red links is hurting Wikipedia but you still insist on removing them. With serving the reader we should remove a bunch of pointless templates on article space not removing red links. I don't think readers react at all badly to this and it even has a plus, it might encourage them to become editors. Garion96 (talk) 20:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a policy of distinguishing between policies and guidelines, exactly because quite a few editors care about the difference. Nor can one logically arrive at the claim that I'm being arbitrary in opposing a guideline. (One couldn't even leap to that conclusion from my opposing a policy, though policy would still trump such opposition, whereäs a guideline does not.) I've stated very clearly what my problem is to an article awash in redlinks, and my argument is very much in keeping with fundamental Wikipedia policy.

A device that makes articles harder to read can be an effective way of recruiting editors, but it is not an appropriate means. We might similarly do this with a 'bot that effected errors of grammar, spelling, and use. —SlamDiego_←T 20:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I don't agree it makes it harder to read. That's just your opinion and contrary to community consensus. In fact, I think removing the red links is hurting Wikipedia. One illogical but true aspect of IAR is whenever you have to cite IAR, it already doesn't fall under IAR. Garion96 (talk) 20:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Either way it's obvious we will never agree and it's likely you will keep reverting I posted a comment here. Garion96 (talk) 21:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not just my position. In fact, I came to the recognition that the over-abundance of redlinks in that article was a problem after another editor expressed concern, and I gave it some thought. Further, the effect of red is well documented. This is not simply a matter of someone's personal aesthetic.

If you're going to abandon logic in discussing WP:IAR, then continued discussion of it with you cannot be rational. —SlamDiego_←T 21:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You think my interpretation if IAR is illogical? (Which is your opinion and I can't help that) But because of that a discussion with me can not be rational? (Which is ridiculous). I suggest you read some of the archives at WT:IAR. Garion96 (talk) 21:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You asserted that something about WP:IAR were “illogical but true”. Whether you misspoke or not, you need to take ownership of what you said, and not waste my time. —SlamDiego_←T 21:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I asserted that and I agree with it. But it still is illogical in a way that whenever you have to invoke IAR you should not to cite it. But it's not just my opinion, see Deskana's comment for instance at Wikipedia_talk:Ignore_all_rules/Archive_17#Valid_application_of_IAR.3F. Garion96 (talk) 21:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an aspect of WP:IAR; it's an aspect of someone's interpretation of it, which interpretation you ought to reject. Ultimately, invoking WP:IAR amounts to the combination of a declaration that the mission (and hence the supreme rule) of Wikipedia is to produce the best attainable encyclopedia, with a claim that the imposition of some lesser rule would interfere with that mission. It a better world, one could say that without ever invoking WP:IAR explicitly, but this world isn't that better world. —SlamDiego_←T 22:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't reject it and neither do many other editors. Does that make a discussion with me or them automatically not rational? Garion96 (talk) 23:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It injects an intrinsic degree of irrationality into your discussion. Whether it discussion hopeless may be another matter, but it would certainly be less promising. —SlamDiego_←T 23:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

		The Socratic Barnstar
		For the flawless use of logic in defending Wikipedia principles. -- Vision Thing -- 11:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I try. —SlamDiego_←T 19:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for arbitration[edit]

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia: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—

Thanks, The Four Deuces (talk) 19:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply[edit]

I was certainly aware than Lawrencekhoo was not a fan of Austrian economics, but I was seeking a counter-view of Austrian economics (besides Krugman's "explanations" which were certainly inadequate). However, it seems that from your userboxes that we share similar economic views. But as you can see, the major area of my contributions is Chinese history, not economics. Teeninvestor (talk) 15:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of mutual incomprehension between the mainstream and the members of the Austrian School. Combine that with the hostility of many members on each side, and the chances of getting a useful critique from one of the other are very poor. In either case, you'd want to find someone who hadn't become committed to the idea that the other side were cranks before he or she had developed an understanding from sources from that other side. And, because the intellectual demands of a proper cross-school critical appraisal are different from those required to succeed in ordinary academic pursuits, doctorates or professorships don't imply an ability to ably critique the other side, even if the critic proceeds in good faith. —SlamDiego_←T 21:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop[edit]

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TNX, but my participation was limited to supporting a remark by another editor who noted that the term “approval voting” was being mis-applied, and I did not much look into the various other issues here. —SlamDiego_←T 08:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]