User talk:BigK HeX/Archive 4

Empirical analysis

 * Why you can't change it to "often use empirical analysis" is beyond me.
 * It seems like those raving-rant postscripts are a tradition for you, but all that aside, I'd actually have little problem with adding to [not necessarily changing] the text to describe the mainstream use of empirical analysis, although that almost seems pretty much assumed. BigK HeX (talk) 06:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed is on article probation. -- TS 19:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi
Would you be interested to comment or contribute on this? Perhaps I am biased here, but you could provide a slightly different perspective? Thanks, Biophys (talk) 23:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure. Though, I can only help with an opinion on RS (and possibly) NPOV issues.  BigK HeX (talk) 23:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I would rather take a break for the moment.Biophys (talk) 14:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Austrian School
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Weakopedia (talk) 05:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Weakopedia (talk) 07:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

A thread has been opened about this at the edit warring noticeboard, concerning your additions to the article Weakopedia (talk) 07:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Peter Schiff
Sorry about that revert, I thought that the "non-professional" was referring to him being a broker, not an economist. Wiki-editing at 5:30 am is not recommended. ; ) --Cerebellum (talk) 14:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hah... that's the BEST time! Cheers BigK HeX (talk) 15:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Economics: Developments
Firstly, thank you for signing the census, and an apology to those who dislike posts such as this one for messaging you again in this way. I've now got myself organised and you can opt-out of any future communication at WP:WikiProject Economics/Newsletter. Just remove your name and you wonn't be bothered again.

Secondly, and most importantly, I would like to invite your comments on the census talk page about the project as a whole. I've given my own personal opinion on a range of topics, but my babbling is essentially worthless without your thoughts - I can't believe for one moment that everyone agrees with me in the slightest! :)

All your comments are welcomed. Thanks, - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 17:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Oops
WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Karmaisking - he did ask for it, but I think it's DUCKy myself. Ravensfire ( talk ) 03:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hah. You didn't meander. KiK will surely appreciate that!  BigK HeX (talk) 03:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for taking a rational approach to the issues on the Peter Schiff talk page. I have put a note on USER:Screwball23's User page Reminding him about the policies for civility. See you on the talk page. Cheers!-- — Kbob • Talk  • 17:50, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

TPM
Please go to TPM talk page and vote for new section title. Thanks. Malke 2010  18:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Yo!
Hey that section in the Scheuer article is not encyclopedic and seems to represent haphazard political activism on the part of visitors. I cut the stuff that seemed most obviously over the top (Ron Paul's following always gets him into the conversation, whenever possible, eh?).

I think the article would be improved by the section's complete destruction. I would prefer to integrate some of the useful passages, which I was working toward until you stepped in. Do you believe it possible to reconcile that much quotation with Wikipedia standards? In any case, as it stands, it is laughably out of Wiki regs. Hopefully you'll reconsider your undoing of the cuts. Cheers, DBaba (talk) 16:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I currently have no opinion on the text .... I just kinda wanted to know what was going on with that much of the article being trashed. A lot of blank edit comments didn't aid me in figuring out your goal, but it looks like you've got a plan in mind.  I'll check out the fruits of your labor in the next few days, I suppose.  Happy editing!  BigK HeX (talk) 18:32, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Tea Party Movement
Please don't keep adding Fox news to the astroturfing section. It's redundnant. Fox News is covered already in the Claims of Media Bias section. These sections are already overloaded now. Thanks. Malke 2010  16:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you see my Fox news text in the astroturfing section??? BigK HeX (talk) 16:39, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Okay, saw it in media claims. Thanks! :)  Malke  2010  18:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)


 * No prob ;)    BigK HeX (talk) 18:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Too fringe-y?
Talk:Criticism of fractional-reserve banking


 * (cur | prev) 08:28, 14 May 2010  BigK HeX (talk | contribs) (46,885 bytes) (?Money / credit contractions: too fringe-y ) (undo)
 * (cur | prev) 07:08, 14 May 2010 Oldspammer (talk | contribs) (46,684 bytes) (?Money / credit contractions: new section) (undo)


 * Should any serious consideration by you (or anyone) be paid to the information within the video presentations?
 * Would you skip a lecture in your job training? Have you ever found out that your schooling about some topic was superficial or turned out to be slightly inaccurate / simplified?
 * Is it crazy to consider that non-vested interests with no financial incentive ARE ALL LYING about a huge list of important matters that affect the course of human history?
 * Or is it more possible that highly vested interests with hundreds of billions of dollars incentive are being less than candid about what has happened and is happening now?
 * Are criticisms leveled against the establishment not to be tolerated, nor even considered?
 * What is the nature of critically thinking these days?
 * What does a duped victim of a con job think if they still haven't realized they were a victim at all?
 * Would the duped person defend the victimizer or would they look into the serious allegations leveled at the potential criminals?

That article is a huge mess partly because it appears as though lots of the same phrases and sentences are repeating the same information several times in different sections. Oldspammer (talk) 00:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Peter Schiff
Hey Hex, Thanks for keeping your cool and taking a measured approach to things over at Schiff. I really appreciate your efforts to create content that accurately reflects the sources and also really appreciate your communication and consensus building efforts on the talk page. I look forward to continuing to work with you (and others) to improve the article. Cheers!-- — Kbob • Talk  • 19:49, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Not a problem! The NPOV battle on those types of pages is often a tough slog.  Thanks for all the cleanup.  I think the article is in a pretty good state at the moment.  Definitely let me know, if there's something else like this and we can tackle it.  BigK HeX (talk) 17:09, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Roger that :-)-- — Kbob • Talk  • 18:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

.

tea party thing
The Cynthia Tucker thing is her synthesis. She's not quoting him directly. Read the whole article. Her quote doesn't accurately reflect what he said. Not trying to be 'shocking,' :D Malke 2010  15:44, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The WP:OR/WP:SYN policies almost certainly have no relevance. Ironically, using your judgment in characterizing Tucker's summary as a basis for editing the article actually IS WP:OR. BigK HeX (talk) 15:49, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Peter Schiff (again)
Hey BigK, I noticed that in the edit summary of a recent revert over at Peter Schiff you mentioned that you felt that the 20th was the last time anything new needed to be said in the talk page discussion about the nonprofessional economist bit. There actually have been a couple of new points raised, in particular the idea of posting on the BLP noticeboard to get the perspective of some uninvolved editors to help us resolve this issue. Would you mind coming over and giving your thoughts on this idea? As one of the primary contributors to this article, I think we would all like to have your opinion on the matter. Thanks, --Cerebellum (talk) 12:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

(Peter Schiff) What is an economist?
If you could respond to my point on the definition of economist, that would be great. Since the discussion involves the definition of a word, I have cited the Marriam-Webster dictionary. This is what I added to the discussion on May 22nd:
 * "http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/economist A specialist in economics. Is Peter Schiff a specialist in economics? http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/specialist  One who specializes in a particular occupation, practice, or branch of learning. Does Peter Schiff specialize in economics? http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/specialize  To make particular mention of. / To concentrate one's efforts in a special activity, field, or practice. Has Peter Schiff made a particular mention of economics? Yes. Has Peter Schiff concentrated his efforts on economics? Yes. In other words, Peter Schiff is an economist. "

Secondly, I hope we can not have an edit war over this disagreement. The issue has not been resolved and until it has been, we'll keep the original text. --StormCommander (talk) 21:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have some questions for you based on policy. Do you think the labels of "professional" or "non-professional" are neutral?  Is a book review (one opinion) an adequate rating of Peter Schiff's status as a professional or non-professional economist? Do you agree that the label of "non-professional" can come across as a belittling opinion as explained by JohnDoe0007 (06:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)) and Cerebellum (02:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)) in the article discussion.  During a dispute about one label versus another, isn't the neutral position to use no label at all? --StormCommander (talk) 23:16, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Biased Editing
Thanks for your work and attempts on the Tea Party movement page and trying to keep it neutral. It is infuriating that some "seasoned" editors are legends in their own minds, and take it upon themselves to make it "their" page, speaking to their political views. I posted something from the NY Times/CBS poll, actual statistics not highlighted on the page. They were taken down for no reason other than the fact that the editor did not like how it portrayed the Tea Party. However, this information---directly from the poll that is already there, cited---provided a more neutral view of the Tea Party. Some of these editors have no business on wiki b/c their interest is not a community developed encyclopedia. Rather, they manipulate information to meet their agenda. Their answer is "take it talk".

Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicopadilla (talk • contribs) 04:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I wonder if you've seen some of the hilarity on the Noticeboards. For a good chuckle, be sure to check 'em out. BigK HeX (talk) 05:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Assume GF
Look, it is one thing to disagree with me, but I have over 10 years of statistical analysis, presentation and publication. You simply CANNOT extraplote studies out from a small sample to the entire population when the sample is not representative of the population as a whole. The Newsweek article is wrong, and has missapplied the results of the study. Now do you want WP to be correct, or a bastion of partisan attacks? Arzel (talk) 14:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "Now do you want WP to be correct, or...."
 * Please read WP:TRUTH. Even if you decide to read only up to the second sentence.  You can propose a new version, if you like, but the noticeboard is very clear that you have no justification for deleting the text. It sounds like you may be preparing to do some original research, if so, then please reconsider wasting any effort on that and just accept the consensus where it has fallen. BigK HeX (talk) 15:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I see that you cannot assume good faith. Please go to the talk page and read the difference between what was actually said in the sources, and the person that did the study.  You cannot have concensus on something that is shown to be patently false.  Arzel (talk) 03:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm quite curious as to your understanding of AGF. What exactly is it that you're expecting in order to feel that an assumption of good faith is being extended to you? BigK HeX (talk) 04:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Point taken, I don't think you are capable. Arzel (talk) 13:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I seriously doubt that you "take my point" on this AGF matter... just as I doubt your application of this (and just about every other) Wikipedia guideline that you've invoked... BigK HeX (talk) 15:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Dude, this is just a friendly suggestion. Your edit summary and the comments here  are not recommended.  You have made some good contribs to TPM.  Might be a good idea to rethink some things.  You're a good guy.  Arzel is a good guy, too.  The page is locked anyway, right? Malke  2010  20:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. BigK HeX (talk) 20:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

We disagreed in one article, are you following me to others?
Hello, we have been on the opposite sides of a dispute involving the Peter Schiff article. Is it a coincidence that you appeared in the other dispute I am involved in after making no contributions to the article? Are you purposely opposing my stances in other article discussions because of our original disagreement? --StormCommander (talk) 17:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Which answer are you hoping for ... a "Yes" or a "No"? BigK HeX (talk) 17:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Yworo (talk) 16:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

tea party
You're up to 3rr, so be careful. This study is really not important and not worth a trip to the gallows. Malke 2010  20:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Reported for violating WP:3RR
I didn't want to use a template on you. I have reported you after making a 4th revert in dispute, as previously warned.Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring †TE†  Talk  20:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Blocked
 You have been blocked for edit-warring on Tea Party movement. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator. For alternative methods to appeal, see Appealing a block. --  tariq abjotu  09:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)