User talk:Lawrencekhoo/Archive 3

Austrian inflation

I am sorry if my use of the undo button seemed to imply that I was reverting because of any affinity for the other editor. To be clear, I undid your reversion because I felt that the "verbiage is clearly describing the AS view, not maj. view," and so was more correct in that context than your version. Cheers, DickClarkMises (talk) 05:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Please comment

I would like to hear your thoughts on my comment at Talk:Geothermal heat pump#Intro paragraph, source of heat.--Yannick (talk) 13:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Left-wing nationalism

Which you opined about in a deletion discussion is being proposed for a merge. Collect (talk) 22:21, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

infoboxes

Hi, the removal was done by the discussion here which resulted in some guidelines for that infobox. See also this discussion. Garion96 (talk) 08:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers! Sorry for the late response. LK (talk) 11:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Sustainable energy navbar

I note you have added the sustainable energy navbar to Sustainability; this navbar also appears on the following pages • Passive solar building design •Hybrid vehicle •Solar thermal energy • Energy conservation •Solar hot water •Cogeneration •Jevons paradox • Sustainable transport • Sustainable energy •Geothermal heating •Green building •Anaerobic digestion • Flexible-fuel vehicle •Microgeneration •Passive solar • Geothermal heat pump • Solar combisystem •Mitigation of peak oil •Efficient energy use • Electric car • Microgeneration Certification Scheme • Template:Sustainable energy •Sustainability •Energy law •BioEthanol for Sustainable Transport

Don't you think this is overkill? A simple link to Sustainable energy would suffice (and already exists in most of the above articles), I'm not belittling the importance of sustainable energy but there needs to be some structure to each article; it's not the top-ranking issue in all cases.

If you want to discuss, perhaps do so here

Thanks --Travelplanner (talk) 10:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Wage slavery redux

I have complained about one editor on that article. I don't think I want to file a sock puppet investigation, but you may want to. But since a lot of the name calling is directed at us, maybe some other party would be better.

Any way, this person, seems to use multiple accounts to return to Wage slavery in a very disruptive way. You also could refer to this in that regard [1]]

There doesn't seem to be any shortage of probable evidence as to this person being problematically disruptive.

3RR complaint about NeutralityForever

3RR complaint about the IP

ANI complaint about the original sockpuppetry

The IP's block log

Block log of NeutralityForever

Block log of Entresasix

Protection log of Wage slavery.

This is probably just a small aspect of the deep well of issues with that person. - skip sievert (talk) 16:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I've left some messages for the editor in the hopes that he/she will reform. LK (talk) 15:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Welfare state

LK, don't you see the negative connotations in defining Krugman as a "welfare state liberal" in the lead of his BLP. This is a sound bite type of edit POV pushing critics absolutely love. I'd hope you'd revisit this edit, I changed it to reflect what Krugman actually said about his being liberal. Of course, the conservative POV pushers like Childofmidnight reverted back to your "welfare state liberal". Unreal. Scribner (talk) 04:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I too an am unabashed supporter of the a market based welfare state. I don't really see it as derogatory, and I hope that the level of political discourse has not fallen to such a level that it is considered an insult to accuse someone of supporting social security, medicare, unemployment insurance, financial aid for needy students, housing for the homeless, etc. LK (talk) 04:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the level of political discourse has fallen to such a level that it is considered an insult to say that someone is on welfare, particularly among conservatives, just like the ones habitually attacking his page. Scribner (talk) 13:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply

In both of the versions I undid in the History of China template [2] [3], the dark borders between Song, Liao and Jin disappeared. The browser is IE.--Balthazarduju (talk) 08:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I reverted back to your last version. I tried to keep your edit changes but also try to fix the border, and ended up switch the "border-collapse:collapse" with "cellpadding=0 cellspacing=0", which is what causes the border to disappear.--Balthazarduju (talk) 09:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll go look at it later, to see if I can catch the issues that you have with it. What version IE, and what version windows are you using? LK (talk) 09:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Oops

I hadn't meant to add the bits about Krugman encouraging the housing bubble back in. I think I may have been working on an older version of the article in one of my edits. Sorry about that. I see you've taken it back out. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Marcus Autism Center

I have created a page that you have deleted. What do I need to do to get it back up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tracybenn (talk • contribs) 20:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear Tracy, I do appreciate that you are trying to contribute to Wikipedia, but you're going about it the wrong way. If you want to introduce an article, it's best to create it first on your own userspace, for you that would be user:Tracybenn. While in your userspace, you should make sure that the article explains why the topic is notable, and have included reliable sources showing that what you have written is balanced, fair and correct (see WP:NPV). Lastly, copyedit it and make sure it looks right. Only then should create you the article, and copy the material over from your user space. Keep in mind that not all topics should have an encyclopedia article. Make sure that you show clearly that the topic is notable, and have many reliable third party sources backing up what you say. G'luck LK (talk) 15:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for improving Full Reserve Banking

Thank you for neutralizing my language!

I just felt that the previous version of the article showed a bias in favor of the "Free Lakota Bank". DJGWB (talk) 03:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks! First time someone has thanked me for NPVing their language! Thanks! BTW, do you think I've over done it a bit? Should it read 'is likely not a' instead of 'may not be a'? LK (talk) 09:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a note - I've removed the irrelevant comments relating to the possible location/origin of the bank. This has nothing to do with the article itself. It's trivial at best, completely irrelevant at worst. There is also no reliable secondary source. It's also unencyclopedic because it's purely speculative. Please do not revert. It's particularly disturbing that this irrelevant "speculation" on the exact location/origin of the bank is put up on WP, given that other FullRB innovators have been shot and killed in the past, for reasons unknown. - TimothyDon-HughMak (talk) 09:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

3RR

You have broken 3RR at Paul Krugman, per [4]. Don't do this. Instead of blocking you, I'm telling you to leave the article (but not the talk page) alone for 48h William M. Connolley (talk) 07:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Oops, my mistake I guess. Sorry. Lemme go look at the page history. I have been doing some heavy editing on that article, as far as I know, according to consensus. I didn't think about 3RR. BTW, isn't there a 3RR exception for removing undue negative material from a BLP? Anyway, I won't touch that article for a while. LK (talk) 07:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to note, on the 4th revert, the person I reverted left this message (found above) in response:

Oops I hadn't meant to add the bits about Krugman encouraging the housing bubble back in. I think I may have been working on an older version of the article in one of my edits. Sorry about that. I see you've taken it back out. [5]

SlamDiego etiquette

Hello LK--regarding wikiquette discussion, I haven't followed that AfD much, but when I visited it a while ago, and saw SlamDiego's note on "unfairly...", I did not take it as an accusation of misconduct, but rather as a note to clarify to anyone else reading that the IP user had not voted twice. I can see how you could misread it as an accusation, but the meaning Slam says they intended is the same one I read. CRETOG8(t/c) 08:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, ok, I will take this into consideration. However, when I read it, it appeared to be a serious accusation of misconduct. Similar to breaking into a polling booth and stuffing the ballot boxes with obviously fake votes for you opponent so as to discredit him. Perhaps I'm too old fashioned, but I saw it as an insult to my honesty, my reputation was impinged. I do believe, if I was living in the 19th century, I would have dueled over this. It was a matter of 'face'. <Laughs> I am too old fashioned. Or perhaps, just too Chinese. Excuse me, I think I'll go brew some tea now. Perhaps some dim sum afterwards. LK (talk) 08:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Fascism

Just to let you know, Fascism is under 1RR. -- Vision Thing -- 12:15, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, noted with thanks. LK (talk) 17:47, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Jevons paradox

I reverted you at Jevons paradox re: quality of life. I think quality of life only refers to material anyway -- certainly that's all the article covers. And I don't think there's any confusion possible here.

If you really feel it has to be that way, you can revert me -- but I have a *strong* preference for the simpler version.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 04:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

IMO, quality of life has always been ambiguous, especially, recent research has shown that happiness is only weakly correlated with income, above a certain threshhold. However, since you feel so strongly about it, I won't make a fuss about it. LK (talk) 08:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Lawrence, thanks for the barnstar!! I've been working on List of recessions in the United States, thinking it might one day be ready for WP:FLC. You don't happen to have access to anything with more information on 19th century US recessions, do you? I think I'll be able to find enough on the 20th century recessions to write a good paragraph, but struggling for older ones. I'd like to include data on depth as well as length -- after 1929 there's standardized GDP calculations, and there's indexes before 1929, but they're not exactly comparable. The Zarnowitz book has some old indexes for earlier recessions, but they're not comparable to GDP (the indexes fall 25% or more in regular recessions whereas a 25% drop in GDP is catastrophic, Great Depression sort of crisis). Think it's best to not even try talking about depth? --JayHenry (talk) 01:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, don't have any good leads off-hand. Have you looked in the free 1911 edition of the Britannica? You can view the text here. LK (talk) 07:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a much less studied area of economics than I would have guessed. I did find this on Google Books, which is probably adequate for my purposes if I can track down a copy. --JayHenry (talk) 22:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, my library has a hard copy. If you let me know specifically what you need, I can scan and email to you. Or if it's something short I can type it in. LK (talk) 14:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Your response to RfC re h2g2

You responded to this RfC, which asked about "content hosted on the h2g2 blog site". That formulation of the RfC was misleading. The h2g2 site includes some self-published material, but the current dispute actually concerns one specific portion of the site, namely the Edited Guide. No content is published in the Edited Guide unless and until it's approved by a BBC staff editor.

There's general agreement with your opinion that the "blog"-type portions of the site don't meet WP:RS. If you go back to the RfC now, though, you'll see much more information about the Edited Guide, which is the point actually at issue. JamesMLane t c 05:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, heading over there now to give my 2 bits. LK (talk) 07:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. You said, "This whole conversation should probably be transcluded to WP:RSN...." That sounds like a good idea but I don't really know what the procedure is for establishing a "library" of such reliability discussions. For at least one source -- alas, I can't remember which one -- there's a "sticky" notice at the top of the talk page for the article about that source. The notice summarizes and links to prior discussions of whether the source satisfies WP:RS. That might make it easier for an editor to find the information. Is there a place at WP:RSN where someone wondering about h2g2 could readily find the RfC we've completed? JamesMLane t c 18:46, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Sustainable energy navbar (again)

Firstly, many thanks for creating this excellent navbar and for participating in the discussion about it on the Sustainability page.

In the case of the Sustainability article, there was already an issue with too many navbars and infoboxes. I think the outcome there, of a smaller infobox added to the relevant section, worked well.

Adding the Sustainble energy navbar to the Sustainable Transport article generates a more difficult issue. I deleted the navbar in this case but have created an "environment" subsection of that article and included both biofuels and electric vehicles as inline links. Since both pages quite appropriately contain the Sustainable Energy infobox I think this works.

My main reason for not wanting the Sustainable Energy navbar in the Sustainable Transport article is that neither of the currently feasible sustainable energy sources (biofuels and electric vehicles) is recognised in recent, reliable published sources as linked to any overall improvement in transport sustainability. As I say in the introduction and back up from many sources throughout the article, sustainable transport systems are not based around the private car and have never been achieved in practice by running private cars on some alternative fuel, however appealing this idea is in theory. So opening the article with a sustainable energy navbar simply clashes with a key message of the article.

Meanwhile I am still unclear whether it really is good practice for a navbar to appear on every page it links to. My own view is that linking upwards (eg from biofuels to sustainable energy) works, but that linking from overview articles to detailed ones is more troublesome; it can interrupt the flow from the general to the specific and create a misleading impression.

Let me know if this bothers you; meanwhile I've taken the navbar off of Sustainable transport.--Travelplanner (talk) 09:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually it bothers me a lot. IMO, the maze of 'green' articles badly needs some sort of navigation guide. In-line mentions are not a good substitute as they don't lay out the 'map' for a new, interested reader. However, I'm loathe to get into any sort of edit war over this issue, and so will let it go. Please consider adding navbars as appropriate to articles, as I think it really helps readers move around. LK (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

You know, I completely agree with you. The maze of 'green' articles seriously needs navigation tools - it also needs a considerable tidy-up. The only issue on which we differ is how to place a specific navbar into a general article, especially in a case like this where the relative importance of renewable energy to sustainable transport is still a pretty hot topic of debate.

With your permission I'd like to move this conversation back to the main "sustainability" talk page as others there are as bothered as yourself about the lack of a "map" for these pages but the peer review process is pushing us in the direction of fewer navbars and more inline mentions, for reasons which I think we need to discuss. Would you be OK with this?--Travelplanner (talk) 00:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, will drop by the sustainability page. Feel free to quote or copy from here as you feel appropriate. LK (talk) 02:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Have a look at Sustainable transport and let me know if you think the navigation is improved.--Travelplanner (talk) 01:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Keynes

I reviewed the JMK article and placed it on hold. Some major issues and some minor ones, but overall a good bit of work. Protonk (talk) 22:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all your hard work on this. I'm working on the issues that you identified, and will drop you a line when it's done. LK (talk) 06:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Lawrence, ive pretty much finished my responces for now. If anything you're working on contradicts any changes ive made or any preferences i expressed on the review page, still dont hesitate to ammend the article as you see fit. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking Krugman wasn't given due prominence, glad you fixed that. Everyones been talking about his 'big government saved the day' piece. When I lasted looked at MOS on pics it said either they should alternate left right , or should be all on the right hand side. I think either is fine, but chopping and changing kind of spoils the visual effect? I agree with ProtonK there's maybe 3 main things to do before we can put this up for FAC. 1) Sort out General Theory, so we can link to that as a "main article" and thus write about his economics in more detail than space allows on the bio. 2) Get some public domain pre 1923 pics of Keynes & Lydia. 3) Sort out reception, im asking if the prohibition against cquote can be dropped from MOS, but otherwise I think the section has to be totally re written in the more conventional way as I agree it doesn't look too hot with block quotes. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Fred, the reason I moved the pic is because MOS recommends against putting a pic under a heading, except level 2 or above headings, as it can sometimes (at some font sizes, screen sizes) separate the heading from the following text, making it look like the heading is for the pic instead of the following text.

I agree about what needs to be fixed, I think we should go with the regular quote template as that is what we used in the last article I saw through FA. best, LK (talk) 13:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

FSM

Hi Lawrence. I hope you don't misunderstand the edits I made at FSM, because I wasn't intending to argue with you. I have (hopefully!) explained it at the article talk page, but please let me know if I was unclear. Best wishes, --Tryptofish (talk) 18:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Left-wing nationalism

I noticed that you commented on the merger of left-wing nationalism with nationalism. The problem with the term "left-wing nationalism" is that it has no definition so that the article is pure WP:SYN. The only reference given for the concept is from The Decolonization of Quebec: An Analysis of Left-Wing Nationalism Milner, Henry and Sheilagh Hodgins (1973). In the book they state that they are using the word to describe events in Quebec and were not trying to describe a concept that applied to other nations. The article is now just a list of groups that were both nationalist and left-wing, although neither of the terms is defined. For example both the Israeli Labor Party and Fatah are listed because both are nationalist and members of the Socialist International. But it is hard to argue that they have a shared ideology. If you believe that it is a notable topic, then could you please help by providing a definition. Otherwise perhaps you could reconsider your vote. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for help on Paul Krugman

Notwithstanding my many dyspeptic comments, I learned from you in editing this BLP, and I think I made it better while learning to be a better editor. But those learnings are overshadowed by a kind of shell shock from the war zone -- Rd232 just pointed out that I got dates wrong in my little catalogue of Vision Thing Plagiarisms. I can't believe I did that. Some of what I pointed out still stands. But I'm now afraid that, if anger is causing me to not notice mistakes like those, I might now be similarly oblivious to errors elsewhere, my own and others. I think I'll just stop working on that article, maybe even just cool out from Wikipedia altogether for a while. But I didn't want to stop without acknowledging what's been good about it, and your calm and reasoned advice was one of those things. Yakushima (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Alfred Eichner

I recently am expanding this one beyond stub, Alfred Eichner, and if you find it interesting maybe you could help to expand it also. Interesting guy (in my opinion), and he seems to have been a pretty big influence also on mainstream and heterodox issues. It could probably use another paragraph in the lead and also another article section if you can think of some issues as to more content. skip sievert (talk) 18:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleting a redirect - Agriculture (Himachal)

It has a lot of incoming links that'll need correcting.[6] Fences&Windows 20:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed the links so that they go to the new name, all the ones I could find anyway. I think it's safe to delete now. The ones that are still there are either from the prod, or showing because of a navbar link which I have fixed (takes a while to update I think). LK (talk) 10:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

20%

Hey Lawrence, I saw your statement on another page and thought it was very interesting. I'm impressed that you follow through with your own actions so that's very impressive (and a great deal more than our political leaders seem to do).

While I understand the logic in economic principle that a certain portion of the population might use a bump in income more usefully than another (although I'm not sure I agree with it broadly, I do think middle class stimulus seems to be a key), I would suggest that there's a problem with mandating one's own values on others. For example, it ceases to be charity or philanthropy once there is compulsion. Anyway, just dropping by to say hello. Take care. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:49, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Personally, I think I should be giving more, and so don't feel particularly good about myself. It's a problem with the utilitarian framework, in essence, nothing is ever enough. About the imposition of my beliefs on others, I view income redistribution as similar to the laws against child labour, statutory rape and spousal abuse. We are imposing our beliefs on those affected by these laws, but not doing so would bring greater harm to others. I would oppose laws that impose beliefs, but do not prevent harm to anyone (eg. laws against anal sex between consenting adults), but I think poverty reduction is a different category altogether. LK (talk) 04:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I think your take on utilitarian is a little bit unusual. Most people who support wealth redistrubition and other policies supported by Democrats tend not to be utilitarians or to use that terminology because it is associated so closely with "usefulness" and seen as a cold decision making process towards people who who are struggling. For example, a pure utilitarian approach would not invest much in homeless people, or the severely disabled, or the elderly would it, assuming there is very little to be gained by making those investments? I thought utilitarian ideals are associated with Hume and the sacrificing one for the many ends justify the means type of approach. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It's an unfortunate name association. 'Utilitarian' in everyday conversation is very different from Utilitarianism as a philosophy. Actually, Utilitarianism is the belief that the morally correct action is that which brings the "greatest good for the greatest number of people". It is related to Hume, who was a major proponent of it. Applying it to individual ethics, one would ask, how can I live my life, so as to bring about the most happiness, and relieve the most suffering in the world as a whole? Since there is so much that can be done, anyone who's not Mother Teresa is constantly falling short of this moral standard. LK (talk) 16:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

What about situations where doing harm or neglecting an individual gives a disproportionate benefit? For example a case where meeting the needs of one person who has a lot of problems is very taxing and the same investment could do a lot more "good" benefitting other people with lessacute needs. The classic would you kill one person if it saved 10 discussion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the classic example. The person who throws himself on a grenade and dies to save his 5 buddies in war is a hero. The doctor who cuts up a person with no family, friends or connections, to save 5 other people is a villain. I might agree with the first, but I won't agree with the second sentiment. These types of arguments, IMO, just serve to illustrate that humans are very bad at estimating appropriate behavior, and that relying unthinkingly on sentiments leads one astray. I'm not saying the doctor is a good person, his motives might be suspect, but his actions did save five lives, and so was arguably the morally correct action. Of course, there are all sorts of caveats (no one must ever find out or else people without family will never visit doctors, the five should be moral people and the one should not be on the point of perfecting cold fusion, the death should be painless, etc), but I would put it in the same moral gray area as assisting suicides for terminal patients, and the legalization of addictive drugs. LK (talk) 04:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Explaining 'See also's

You said "Any links that are already in the article should not be repeated in the 'See also' section."

It depends on the situation. In the case of "Timeline of the Great Depression" I erred, because that is already in a "Main Article" link that I overlooked. I removed "Timeline of the Great Depression" from the "See also" section as you suggested.

However, "Wall Street Crash of 1929" should remain in the "See also" section because anyone looking for just such a link can easily overlook it, if it is buried in a paragraph. I visually scanned the entire Great Depression article twice, and failed to notice it. Only after I entered Edit mode and copied the entire article to my clipboard and searched the clipboard for the character string "Wall Street Crash of 1929" did I finally notice it. Readers should not have to read every word in a large percentage of a long article to find an interesting link, especially if the reader does not know in advance what words to search for.

If a reader knows exactly what they want to search for, then they would use the Search box in the left side bar, rather than the "See also" section. Instead, the "See also" section is useful for readers who do not know what they will want to read until they are prompted by a list of See alsos. Although the Wikipedia:Layout#See also section says 'a good article might not require a "See also" section at all' this would be a good short article. The longer an article is, the more likely a buried link will be overlooked. A reader who goes to the Great Depression article looking for something on the stock marker would not find a section on the stock market, and would not find a "Main Article" link to a stock market article. The reader would likely overlook the buried reference because the reader is not going to read every word of an article that is "peripherally related to the one in question" - the "one in question" being the Wall Street Crash article in this example, not the peripherally related Great Depression article the reader has displayed. Greensburger (talk) 04:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

You make a good point. I agree with your interpretation of the issue – I can see why it's necessary for important article links to also be in the 'See also' section. Rereading Wikipedia:Layout#See also section, I see that accommodation has been made for this concern, and so I fully agree with your edit. regards LK (talk) 04:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: History of China Template

I reverted the template and instead added a parameter that can be used to allow the box to collapse. Gary King (talk) 05:13, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

WKproject Econ

Don't revert Skip's change. Just leave it be and start an RfC. That's my opinion on the subject. Protonk (talk) 06:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I've done as you suggested. It's sad that something as trivial and as innocuous as this needs a RfC. This was time and effort that could have been better spent. LK (talk) 08:58, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Electric transport infobox

I'm terribly sorry, a Wikipedian with my experience shouldn't have made a mistake like that. I had created a subpage on my user page to develop a new template from the Sustainability template, but forgot to transfer the code over before beginning to edit. My apologies. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 09:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the tone of my message, I should have assumed that it was a mistake. Apologies, LK (talk) 11:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Not to worry, with all the inane vandalism we see around here, it's hard to take a different approach to people meddling with things. ;) AniRaptor2001 (talk) 15:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

WP Proj Econ

Nice, perhaps, that you've dealt with skip's undue; but editors on there are biting. I became involved as a result of the RFC. But the climate is such that I'm not going to dedicate attention. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Upright images

Thanks for that - I didn't know that upright could take the parameter 1.2, I thought it was just a flag param.

My only real concern was losing the hard-coded pixel sizes. I edit from a couple of screens, one 640, one 1600 wide. It rubs in the point about device accessibility! Andy Dingley (talk) 14:42, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Business cycles and depressions: an encyclopedia

My library just delivered "Business cycles and depressions: an encyclopedia" by David Glasner, which I had asked them to get out of the archives. It's sitting on my desk now. Let me know if you need something out of it, like a specific page scanned or something. LK (talk) 08:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Ooh interesting. I've been able to access chunks of it via google books, but not the Table of Contents or the index. Luckily, Google Books lets me see the chapters on the 1921, 1873 and 1882 episodes that I'm most currently interested in. Does it have information on any of the other early recessions? Does it have any tables comparing the severity of recessions? Gosh, does it have anything else in it that just looks especially interesting? I've been having quite a bit of fun working on these articles on 19th and early-20th century American recessions. Oh, yeah, that reminds me, it would be good to have more of the international perspective. Any of that in there? --JayHenry (talk) 04:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm ... that's going to involve real work. ;-) I'm a bit swamped right now, but I'll have a look though the book, and get back to you in a few of days. LK (talk) 04:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, no urgency at all. Without the index and TOC, I just don't even know what to request from it! --JayHenry (talk) 00:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Re:Editor review!

Oh! Oh, I'm so sorry! I'm not used to these editor reviews, I didn't know if individual respnses were the norm- I am so sorry! My bad! XD

Anyway, uh, right, response. (ahem.) I see and agree completely with your points about mainspace vs. talk page edits. I've taken to marking all my talk page edits as minor. I'm concerned about the article building, I'm helping out with the Insect article as it's being GA reviewed, but most of the edits there deal with small rephrasing and referencing.

And thanks for your comments about my handling of ANI discussions and edit warring. I've tried not to dig myself into drama, asking major editor their opinion before I make major changes. As to the ObserverNY incident, I've learned my lesson. Not everyone can be helped. Some have to be banned. A little insignificant ^{Talk to me!} _{(I have candy!)} 17:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Responses aren't really necessary, it's just that people usually drop by with a short note. Just wanted to make sure you saw it is all. 8-) BTW, it might not be a good idea to mark all your talk page edits as minor. In general, minor edits are: 1) rv of obvious vandalism, 2) Spelling, formatting & grammar fixes 3) layout, rearrangement of pictures, sentences or paragraphs, & 4) correcting internal or external links. Best, LK (talk) 02:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, great. Thank you for all your comments and suggestions! A little insignificant ^{Talk to me!} _{(I have candy!)} 10:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

sock and such

Hello--regarding those specific edits, I'm certainly willing to let them stand as Skip's--as I said, I don't care enough about those edits to get involved for their sake. Regarding Skip's behavior, I'm not willing to let it pass. I'm willing to let things stand as they are for the moment, though, having made the explicit description of (what I see as) Skip's misbehavior. CRETOG8(t/c) 02:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Wiki stalking edits

You are doing now its pretty obvious. You are trailing another page which is contentious to begin with because of control issues of a team, and now you are jumping in support of a series of edits that do not make a lot of sense, give a wrong definition and are not neutral. They make a political pov definition. I note again that you are editing in a vindictive/stirring manner on the Sustainability page. You are taking sides rather than actually having meaningful exchange. I see a pattern of hostility in your edits, and I remind you that I have carefully collated and kept All of the personal attacks and nagging commentary (disruptive) recently on the sustainability talk page. The way you edit is not good in that regard. Stirring stuff negatively is not suggested. Reverting over perceptions of anger, emotion, or edit nastiness, end badly. Wikipedia is not a battleground. skip sievert (talk) 22:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I have been involved in sustainability issues for some time. Note my work on the Sustainable energy sidebar. As I have told you several times before, you should not make negative comments or inferences about other editors' motives, morals, intelligence or good faith. You are violating WP:CIVIL. Stop. In fact don't leave me any more messages on my talk page. I have no further wish to converse with you. All further messages will be reverted. LK (talk) 01:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Editor review

Hi LK, Thank you for taking the time and conducting a review of my contributions. I was surprised that you had noticed my uploading of images had stopped. I guess that since I've had no formal training in photography that the images I uploaded were just to fill a need until a better quality image replaced it. However, I will take your advice and continue to add images to the project.

You're correct about my being terse with users in my comment and edit summaries and I'll have to strive to work on being more polite. It is difficult when you can tell that it's not a matter of misunderstanding but POV pushing. I thought about the current situation with the Buffalo, New York article and used the advice give during the RFC to create List of Buffalo metropolitan area schools and hopefully it may lessen or end the current disagreements.

I'm not sure if you noticed that at times I'll contribute very heavily to an article by either expanding or cleaning it up and then drop off working on it. I'm using this approach to give others a chance to contribute in ways that I may not have thought of and to avoid being accused of "article ownership". Is this a correct approach or should I stay with an article and take it as far as I can like I did with the Edward M. Cotter (fireboat) article?

As regards adminship, I've toyed with the notion of applying in the future. For some time I've watchlisted RFA, ANI and Wikiquette alerts and made minor contributions to each. I'll start looking at the various policies and participate more in those areas that a admin needs to be familiar with. Thanks again for your time! Shinerunner (talk) 10:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you're right about your policy of rotating through articles that you are interested in. It gives others a chance to contribute, and doesn't make it look like you're trying to monopolize the article. If you want to take an article to GA or FA status, it's best to do it as part of a team. That way you're less likely to be accused of 'ownership', and it's easier to deal with fly by POV pushers.

Don't feel obligated to hang around the boards. They can be a real drama-inducing time waster. However, you should pay more attention to them if you are serious about going for admin. I've seen many requests for adminship that have foundered on this issue. In general, they want to see 3 things: 1) That you have had lots of experience doing the admin-like things that non-admins can do, eg. participating on the boards, giving third opinions, answering questions at RfCs, vandal cleaning and new page patrol. 2) That you are familiar with all the various policies and guidelines and 3) That you are unfailingly polite and keep a cool head under serious provocation. They also want to know what you want the tools for, why you want them and what you plan on doing with them. Best of luck, LK (talk) 08:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Heads up

Citing WP:Naming conventions, boldly moved the article about the anti-Beck spoof wesite to Glenn Beck – Isaac Eiland-Hall controversy, which I belive to be something less imprecise and ambiguous than the name it had before. But please feel free to move it to something else. The article has been barely worked on by anybody -- which, by a certain measure, shows its subject matter to be of less interest to WP editors, for whatever reason (and perhaps less notable?), than I had previously thought. (It is a pretty crass joke/parody.)↜ (‘Just M E ’here , now) 23:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Negative effects of a minimum wage

I reverted your revision, as the source isn’t dealing with introducing a minimum wage, but increase the minimum wage rate. Very, very different issue. DOR (HK) (talk) 02:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for fixing my editor review thing!--Coldplay Expert 10:22, 9 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, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/WikiProject Economics Guidelines. For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 12:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

link to ANI

Hello--I'd like to pull your section on the ANI. I'm suspect it falls on the right side of WP:CANVASS, but in any case, there's another risk that it might be part of breaking the mediation. CRETOG8(t/c) 22:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The post had earlier been reverted by Skip, which is why I have not responded before. However, it has since been reinstated. I maintain that the post of a link to the ANI thread about a member of the Wikiproject was entirely reasonable. However, in order to facilitate mediation I have self-reverted the post. LK (talk) 16:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't know that it will help, but hopefully. CRETOG8(t/c) 18:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

It's probably best not to make posts like that. Unringing the bell with respect to canvassing or suspected canvassing is damn near impossible. Protonk (talk) 17:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I still fail to see how a single short note at at Wikiproject talk page that a wikiproject member is the subject of an ANI thread is canvassing. It was limited, neutrally worded, nonpartisan and transparent, and so fails all the tests for canvassing. LK (talk) 17:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say it was canvassing, but a topic ban discussion like that doesn't need the accusation clouding the waters. Protonk (talk) 18:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I see your point. I should be more circumspect in the future. LK (talk) 19:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Welcome

Welcome to the Sustainability improvement project. Your support in the past few weeks has been crucial to re-establishing collaborative editing of the article and ultimately may prove decisive in ending the disruptions. I look forward to collegial and harmonious editing with you. Sunray (talk) 20:29, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Barnstar is much appreciated. I enjoy working on the articles.

Thanks again, Jgard5000 (talk) 13:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)jgard5000

Doh

I made the change you suggested, but then found it was several minutes too late. (I'm surprised though that you think his behaviour is okay). --Geronimo20 (talk) 19:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Alternative mediation?

Hello--There are various issues with the dispute and mediation, but one which is striking to me is the trouble between you and SlamDiego. 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)

You make a very good point. However, if possible, I'ld rather avoid talking to him at all. I'm not sure my stomach could take the months of dealing with him that mediation would take. LK (talk) 14:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Recession encyclopedia

Just sent you an email so you have my address. The Table of Contents should be sufficient -- don't want to make you scan the whole index! By the way, do you think there might be any merit to an idea like this: User:JayHenry/chimpmanzee? --JayHenry (talk) 01:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

RE:P7

Hey there. Thanks for clarifying everything, though I think P7 has moved on to 'greener' pastures; that is, I don't think s/he intends to keep contributing under this moniker. I'm not sure there's much I can do; admittedly, s/he has drawn a lot of flak over the past, and their edits are probably likelier to be examined and critiqued by others more often (not that that's a bad thing, but I'm afraid there would be lots of unnecessary stonewalling). I would support P7's decision to vanish if s/he promises not to return as an IP and behave the exact-same way. Master of Puppets 04:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

where to discuss

Hello--do you have a preferred place to discuss the relevance of the NYT bit? Sorry to get it going in two places at once. I'm fine at either the project or the article. CRETOG8(t/c) 16:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I guess on the article talk page would be the appropriate place. LK (talk) 16:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

please stop edit warring

Please stop removing verified content and please stop edit warring. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

You are not behaving like an unbiased admin. This is the second time you have left an unwarranted warning on my talk page. You still have not retracted your first mistaken accusation, when I have pointed out to you how you were mistaken. This is an issue that you obviously have a personal stake in.

What is happening at the economics article is that one extremely tenacious editor is constantly inserting a fringe theory against the consensus of the members of the economics wikiproject. I am merely removing (as other project members have done) this insertion against consensus, that is essentially an edit war by this one editor against consensus.

And now you walk in and leave a warning on my page, and leave no warning on Skip's talk page, when he has reintroduced this exact same material several times in a row (many more times than I have removed it), against the consensus of several other people from the ECON wikiproject. And then, you enable him by reverting to his inclusion of a fringe theory on the main Economics talk page.

How is the even remotely justified? I am interested in how you can justify your actions.

--LK (talk) 07:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Not only did you leave a warning only for LK, you reinstated skip's revision. Protonk (talk) 07:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Verifiable content shouldn't be removed. I undid the edit as a one-off hint. Y'all wouldn't even be bringing this up if you thought I agreed with your PoV on this topic. I've said more about this on my talk page, since LK posted there too. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

That's a crock. Seems to me like skip couldn't find support for his revision so he found a sympathetic ear w/ the bit (don't even begin to lecture me on how you 'just happened to be an admin'). If you want to wade in and chide people for edit warring, then don't bother signaling that you have a preference over the content. If you just want to edit the article, then be my guest, but be prepared to justify changes that folks editing the page disagree with. Protonk (talk) 13:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)