User talk:Seekers2008

Welcome
Welcome

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes. Wikipedia does not allow advertising. For more information on this, see: If you still have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can write   below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia: I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Leave  Sleaves  04:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Policy on neutral point of view
 * Guideline on spam
 * Guideline on external links
 * Guideline on conflict of interest
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

March 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Leave  Sleaves  06:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

April 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Manmohan Singh did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. You cannot remove sections, and then add your own information without sources or references. gordonrox24 (talk) 22:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If you can prove that the users "Taking Over" the article belong to the parties, then you can report those users, as they are not supposed to be editing in a non-neutral manner. Nobody owns any Wikipedia article, so no; they have not taken over the page. I will restore your text for now, but will be watching the page closely.--gordonrox24 (talk) 22:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. I will keep an eye on it as well as try to figure it out.Thanks!--gordonrox24 (talk) 10:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I talked to an Administrator, and he said that there isn't enough evidence on either page to protect it, or to even give users warnings. Sorry.--gordonrox24 (talk) 21:01, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Sandstein can be contacted if you have further troubles.--gordonrox24 (talk) 22:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Omkar Goswami
A tag has been placed on Omkar Goswami requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Anshuk (talk) 08:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPOV
Please avoid injecting value judgments or things that appear to be value judgments into Wikipedia articles. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 03:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Excuse me? Only someone not knowing the difference between facts and values might say such a thing.  (Wikipedia articles are incidentally filled with value judgements, and biographical ones with self-promotion.)  In your particular case, if you are a self-proclaimed Austrian, know that I knew Rothbard himself and he was not a dogmatic man like those who take his name today.  Seekers2008 (talk) 03:38, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You also need to avoid personal attacks. I am well aware that Wikipedia is filled with value judgments; I just try to clean a few corners here-and-there.  As to your having known Rothbard, I don't see the relevance of your association to the issue of avoiding value judgments.  Nor do I see the relevance of someone taking his name, especially as I do not take his name; the Austrian School was founded by Carl Menger more than half a century before Rothbard was born, and I would never call myself “Rothbardian” or somesuch. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 14:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmmm. Of course Rothbard did not found it but he has been a modern icon. Self-styled Austrians, oddly enough often like self-styled Marxists, are blissfully unaware of the epistemology of value judgements. CSP and late LW might provide therapy. Re ad hominem attacks, such a thing is nearly absurd when both are anonymous. Send an email if you want to chat privately. Seekers2008 (talk) 09:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * For all but about the last two-and-a-half years of Rothbard's life, some othe member or members of the Austrian School would have been clearly more prominent than he. And it is unlikely that most economist, within the Austrian School or more widely, could quickly point to an original contribution to economic theory by Rothbard. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 00:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The policy against personal attacks is not a policy simply against ad hominem argument. It is possible to make a personal attack against someone without having a legal name to associate with that person; one could attack on a personal basis without any other identification than some small act on the part of that person. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 03:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile, the epistemology of value judgments is irrelevant here. You're entitled to seek a change in WP:NPOV; but, while it stands, value judgments and things that avoidably appear to be value judgments run counter to policy. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 13:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPOV & Jemima Khan
You might be interested in Jemima Khan's writings about Pakistan but the documented fact remains that she is best known for her personal life. Her professional accomplishments, unfortunately few, stem from her relationships. She remains an occasional writer/observer. While I think she has talent, she has made basically very little use of it and that is not my problem. The bulk of her public profile consists of the tale of her marriage to Imran Khan and then her romance with Hugh Grant; hence, my supposedly "purient" interest in sketching her biography along those lines.

Secondly, stop injecting your blatant point of view into the article. You have twice added (and I have reverted) to the intro the claim that her recent writings have been "widely praised". To which all I can say is: huh? I have searched through factiva and lexis nexis and could find no such praise, wide or narrow. Your appreciation of her writing does not make them widely acclaimed, however good or bad they may be.

It is a disgrace that you cannot separate your personal opinion/attitude about a subject and the more neutral narrative that an encyclopedia demands.

Please refrain from adding unsourced claims into articles. Thank You. Busillis (talk) 04:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Jemima Khan, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. MrMarmite (talk) 10:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Your wholesale ruination of “Frank Hahn”
The article on Frank Hahn as you left it was a grotesque mess. I'm going to assume that this was all some terrible accident this time. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 09:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No my friend it was not a mess or a ruination; you simply may be unaware of the facts here as on previous occasions. Frank Hahn's detailed bio was found from Siena University; it was unavailable elsewhere; then two separate bibliographies of his had to be painstakingly merged.  I am afraid here, as in our previous discussions, you seem unaware of the facts about economists but just keen to be needlessly aggressive.  Cheers  Seekers2008 (talk) 15:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Look again at how you left that page — don't ‘remember’, look — then take a break from Wikipedia for a while. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 15:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I agree there was a mistake made by me in trying to upload the image, which I failed to do. If you wished to be constructive, and assuming you know more about Wikipedia than I, as I am happy to assume, you would have grasped that and fixed the image problem. The image problem has been fixed and the new data added. (PS Physician, heal thyself). Cheers  Seekers2008 (talk) 15:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Your deliberate falsification in your edit summary is unacceptable. Also unacceptable is your rendering the “Works” section nearly unreadable. If you persist in such unconstructive edits, they will be classified as vandalism and you will be blocked from editing. If you want to add new data to the biography, do so without trashing the “Works” section; it is not the responsibility of any other editor to separate-out any useful content from these ruinous edits. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 15:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, please try to be less aggressive with all your threats and more scientific and constrictive and civil instead. The Works section has not been spoilt in the slightest -- it has been added to.  It is perfectly fine to have a long series of articles in a single paragraph.  If you prefer to see the list-format, it will take you a couple of minutes to change it, or I shall do so in due course.  What you fail to acknowledge is the simple fact that a ton of new and relevant facts have been added by me which you keep deleting.  Namely, date of birth, degrees, honorary degrees, more publications etc.  Try to reflect on this and you will see what I mean.  Cheers Seekers2008 (talk) 16:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Please do something appropriate with your inflated sense of entitlement. Again, your edit to the “Works” section rendered it nearly unreadable, and it is not the responsibility of any other editor to seek and rescue value from within these ruinous edits.  Add new material without trashing-out the rest of the article.  If you don't know how, then cease your demands and put the material on the Talk page with a polite request for help. (If help is not forthcoming, that may be an artefact of your history of offense.) —SlamDiego&#8592;T 16:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmmm.... Someone who gives an impression of thinking he knows all of economics all by himself so much so that he threatens others with being blocked and barred at the drop of a hat in truest dictatorial fashion, speaks of my having an "inflated sense of entitlement"!

So we have come down, upon calm reflection, from an alleged "wholesale ruination" to alleged "rendered nearly unreadable"? Good, that is progress. Please do not set yourself up as someone who can judge all of economics, which is how you come across. Absolutely yes, you were right to pick up on the error I made in uploading the image and you are right to say the list of articles needs to have a better format. But that's it. A good editor would have just constructively corrected the two errors, in view of the vast amount of fresh and rarely available information brought in to Wikipedia; instead you were needlessly aggressive. Cheers. Seekers2008 (talk) 04:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Your irrelevant, conjectural personal attacks are a violation of Wikipedia policy. If you persist then you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Noting that your edit rendered the “Works” section nearly unreadable involves no claim of economic competence. (And rendering a section nearly unreadable is wholesale ruination of the section.) —SlamDiego&#8592;T 06:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Please comment on other user's talk pages
I have removed your comment about Frank Hahn and Hans Hahn from my user page. Such comments should be placed on the user's talk page (or on the relevant article page). Your comment was particularly perverse because you impersonated me, writing a comment using "I" on my personal page. Your misrepresentation was especially offensive, since I have posted a "Busy in Real Life" notice on my page. I would like you to acknowledge your misbehavior here and pledge not to repeat it. Thank you. Sincerely, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 12:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

April 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Deep K. Datta-Ray, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This is particularly important when adding or changing any facts or figures and helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 18:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The article is blatantly self-promoting. His date of birth that was added and has now been deleted by someone is merely from his father's curriculum vita. He has named his father in the article.

I do not know who all these self-styled editors of Wikipedia are threatening people with punishments, banishments etc. Seekers2008 (talk) 13:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ashok Desai (economist)


The article Ashok Desai (economist) has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the prod blp tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can when you are ready to add one. -- Patchy1   05:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)