User talk:Vision Thing/Archive3

--Neon white 17:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC) Apart from the fact that I think you're pursuing a grudge, because I'm challenging you on the Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel page, I think you're a little rash to be challenging things on the law page - I have no problem with you suggesting POSITIVE improvements, i.e. replacing things (when they are well referenced), adding qualifications (again you need references) or adding more material (when it's referenced). I've replied otherwise on the talk page.  Wik idea  11:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do help out with the History of economic thought page, particularly with the final sections. I should also shorten Marx substantially. Again, got to be references, because the article is getting pretty good. Go with the suggestion for the law page, and if you can pull out the part where Proudhon is talking about liberty, then why not add that too. Of course, I know that, but part of a big article like the law one is to try and be concise and get main points in, so that people are encouraged to go looking elsewhere.  Wik idea  12:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you take down your neutrality tag now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidea (talk • contribs) 12:13, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm glad too. Now you just need to agree with me on the Bank of Sweden Prize page!!  Wik idea  12:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

skeevie
i thought you might want to check out this really skeevie ex parte discussion i discovered this morning.--emerson7 06:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Like I wrote to emerson7 (User talk:emerson7), you might also want to check Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (common names). –panda 17:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Nobel Prize in Economics
Do you have any good reason for removing the citation to the Nobel Foundation? If not, then you should replace it. –panda 18:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * [copied from User talk:Panda]
 * They do not say that prize in economics is not a Nobel Prize. By attributing such view to them you are conducting original research. -- Vision Thing -- 18:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

So you're claiming that "The Board of Directors later decided to keep the original five prizes intact and not to permit new additions." is original research for claiming that there's only 5 Nobel Prizes, and those 5 do not include the econ prize? (Please reply here, I'm watching your talk page.) –panda 18:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * How do you explain the fact that Prize in Economics is in the Nobel Prizes category on Nobel Foundation site and that reliable sources (such as that article reviewed by Nobel Foundation) are saying that this is a Nobel Prize? -- Vision Thing -- 18:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * My question is specifically about the quote above. Are you claiming that citing that quote would be original research for claiming that there's only 5 Nobel Prizes, and those 5 do not include the econ prize? –panda 19:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, since that source is not unambiguous whether this is or isn't Nobel Prize. -- Vision Thing -- 19:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * What part is ambiguous? It states specifically "the original five prizes."  What other 5 prizes could it be referring to? –panda 19:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm talking about Nobel Foundation site in general. -- Vision Thing -- 19:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * One again, answer the question. What part of the quote is ambiguous? –panda 19:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources part of no original research policy. It states: "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a secondary source." (Nobel Foundation site is a primary source). -- Vision Thing -- 19:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * For the second time, please answer the question. What part of the quote is ambiguous?  –panda 19:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Nobel Prize in Economics
Please stop with edits like this one. As you are aware of, your suggestion to use Nobel Memorial Prize instead of Nobel Prize has been rejected. If you want to reopen that debate, please do, but until that refrain from unilateral changes. -- Vision Thing -- 11:56, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Let's don't compare apples with cement trucks here. The article name is one thing, that it's called within articles is another thing. By the way, please stop introducing lies to Wikipedia. That may be considered vandalism. // Liftarn


 * The official name of the prize is Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel. Please stop changing the name of the prize in all articles related to this topic. –panda 16:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Milton Freedman and Prize in Economics
Do you have any special reason for removing the official name of the prize, as stated in the cited reference? This was never discussed on the talk page -- that was a discussion between calling it one unofficial name versus another. –panda 18:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * In that discussion "official" name was also mentioned, and rejected. If you want source for this claim please see Brittanica's article where it's clearly stated that Friedman won Nobel Prize . -- Vision Thing -- 19:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've already suggested this to another user but I'll suggest it to you as well. Have you considered replacing the current citation to the Nobel Foundation with a different one since the current citation doesn't support the statement that it references?  (No where in the citation does it state "Nobel Prize in Economics".) –panda 22:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sure, I can do that. -- Vision Thing -- 16:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Nobel Prize
Do you have any good reason for reverting 17 edits to the Nobel Prize article by several editors, including removing several references and reintroducing factual errors in the text? If not, I would encourage you to revert your own edits. –panda 17:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC) p.s. Please reply here, I'm watching your talk page. –panda 17:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I reverted your unilateral changes in the introduction. However, I think I've kept all relevant changes made in the meantime. If you see factual errors please correct them or say what they are. -- Vision Thing -- 18:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That doesn't explain why you reverted 17 edits. Do you have any good reason for doing that? –panda 18:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * BTW, I noticed that you intentionally removed/did not replace all instances of the official name for the econ prize (Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel or Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel) from the article. –panda 19:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I removed one mention which you added in the intro today. -- Vision Thing -- 20:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Correction: you reverted 17 edits today -- the edit summary states "rv to Anthon.Eff".  If all you wanted to do was move text from one location to another, that doesn't require reverting 17 edits.  So once again, what was your reason for reverting 17 edits?  BTW, I've replied to your comment on my talk page. –panda 20:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I counted wrong, I meant 18 reverts. –panda 03:40, 10 October 2007 (UTC) It's still 17 reverts.  –panda 05:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

{| class="notice" style="margin:0.5em auto;"
 * Hello . This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at  regarding .    You are free to comment at the discussion, but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and "no personal attack" policies.  Thank you. // Liftarn

Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics
As you've noticed, panda and Liftarn and allies have been busy trying to replace "Nobel Prize in Economics" everyplace it appears in WP. Rather than trying to stop them, I think it best to make a small concession. To me, "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics" is an acceptable compromise (though not common enough to serve as the title of the article), and I think that very few economists would object to this name. I find objectionable, however, their use of the long, ugly name "Bank of Sweden prize in the economic sciences in memory of Alfred Nobel." So my position is that whenever I encounter the long, ugly name, I will replace it with the shorter name, which these editors appear to find acceptable. If you object, please let me know, and I will reconsider. --Anthon.Eff 21:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I agree, "Nobel Prize in Economics" is my preference, and if that is where the consensus is leading, then I will simply use that name. By the way, looking at the Danish and Swedish papers this morning after the prize was awarded--the Swedes are definitely different from everyone else in being careful what they call the prize. So probably the Swedish editors we've quarreled with would not seem so strange in their own country. Where they go wrong, IMO, is in trying to be activists forcing the rest of the world to follow the Swedish custom.--Anthon.Eff 21:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Fear of God (LA)
A tag has been placed on Fear of God (LA), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD A7.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add  on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add  on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 18:21, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Template for Econ Prize
Please see Template talk:Nobel Prize in Economics. –panda 21:45, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Nazism
This article is considered to be of a controversial topic therefore any substantial changes have to be discussed on the [|talk page] before any edits are made. Removing certain terms from the article as this user did was not justified by a consensus and seemed to me to be based on a personal point of view. --Neon white 17:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The Harvard Salient is both verifiable and reliable. Please do not remove sourced material from this article. --Neon white 00:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The talk page says This is a controversial historical topic, which may be disputed. Please read the talk page and discuss substantial changes there before making them. --Neon white 17:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Nobel Prize in Economics
Thanks for the notification. I've been away for awhile and I've taken all of the Nobel stuff off my watchlist. I think I'll continue to stay out of this. The issue has become just too unpleasant: panda has been following me around to other articles and posting complaints about my behavior. So it's best to stay away. In the end, if their position is too unreasonable, other editors will come along and change it, so it isn't as if they can do permanent damage to WP. --Anthon.Eff 18:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Stop moving it to the incorrect capitalization. It's really petty: there's absolutely no reason to think there is consensus behind the incorrect capitalization. If the RM fails, I'll make sure it's put back to Nobel Prize in Economics. see also. Cool Hand Luke 16:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I would have if you asked, in spite of another admin asking for no page moves, but at this point that would be a reward for your edit warring. I cannot believe you changed all the redirects to reflect the wrong capitalization. It looks like about two thirds are in favor of the move, but you are almost certainly alone in preferring the wrong capitalization. Cool Hand Luke 17:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Why didn't you ask another admin to move it to the correct title? Why did you instead move it to the incorrect title three times? I moved the article off of NYScholars' Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences, and your Nobel prize in Economics, which were both bad faith moves with 0.0% chance of being adopted. I see your point about confusion, so I'll move the page back, but I wish you had asked someone instead of conducted a petty and sterile edit war. Cool Hand Luke 17:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

template
Thanks for changing the communism template. it looks great now. --Soman (talk) 20:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for mediation filed
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Neo-Nazism, and indicate whether you agree or disagree to mediation. If you are unfamiliar with mediation on Wikipedia, please refer to Mediation. Please note there is a seven-day time limit on all parties responding to the request with their agreement or disagreement to mediation. Thanks,  Daniel  02:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted
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.

Murray Rothbard image
Hey, I didn't realize that we were still using non-free images in the Rothbard article. I have modified the image's summary to note its free status, and I have submitted a permissions statement to the OTRS folks. Cheers, DickClarkMises (talk) 09:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Marx
I think your drastic cut re anti semitism violates NPOV. I fully agree what I added was long and in need of cutting and simply ask that you restore more of the valuable content-cut less. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 19:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I thought that what Slrebenstein wrote was a load of hotair. It had no POV because it said nothing. Telaviv1 (talk) 12:31, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism
Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. -- Vision Thing -- 20:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I only reverted three times. Each revert is clearly numbered. I did not violate WP:3RR. 69.138.16.202 (talk) 22:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Responding to "Citation needed"
Hi! I just want to inform you that I question a template of yours at Talk:The_Black_Book_of_Capitalism.--JoergenB (talk) 15:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Emma Goldman
Thank you for your attention to detail on Emma Goldman. I wonder if you'd like to have a look at this discussion on the talk page. Cheers! – Scartol  •  Tok  22:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

article edits
you have my full support. thanks for your edits. keep going. see you. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 20:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your recent edits to Template:Communism sidebar and its related pages.
Hi Vision Thing, Could you explain why you reverted my edits to the above mentioned template and the relevant pages? The reason why I have been switching many of these navigational boxes (ideologies, politics/government, etc) to a navbox is because not articles have the "length" to support infoboxes, therefore creating a lot of white space. I would like to respectfully ask you to revert back to the navbox of version of the template. Regards, nat.utoronto 14:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Collapsable sections
Hi! You have done considerable work on the Socialism sidebar. There has been considerable discussion on the issue of the collapsable sections of templates like that one. I created a centralized place for discussion about this issue here. I hope you can bring your views to the discussion. - C mon (talk) 18:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Center for Economic and Policy Research
I see you insist on including the assertion in the CEPR article that it is seen as supporting and apologizing for Hugo Chavez.

Here is why I believe this is inappropriate. The assertion is, first of all, about a particular perception of CEPR rather than about CEPR itself. It makes no factual reference to any CEPR document, position, etc. Why should such a perception, which is not shared by all, be afforded such prominence? Others might reasonably have different perceptions. No argumentation or evidence is provided that validates that such a perception is even common or held outside a narrow ideological spectrum. That is, given its obvious partisan nature, the referenced source can hardly be pointed to as support that a particular perception of CEPR is uniformly accepted. You might reasonably say that the authors of the reference source and its sources judge CEPR in such a way, but I see no reason why any mention of how CEPR is perceived is even helpful in an entry that doesn't first explain what the CEPR's work and policies actually entail.

Essentially, the assertion is not adequately supported and violates the neutrality principle of Wikipedia.

With all due respect, I think unless additions to the page are made that substantiate and explain the claim, it hasn't a chance at surviving mediation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crmjones (talk • contribs) 22:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Milton Friedman & Nobel Memorial Prize
As long as you continue to remove text without discussing it, I will continue to replace it, especially since you seem to have issues with only part of the text. I don't necessarily endorse the text (I didn't write it), but you've now been asked twice to discuss the text in talk before removing it. I've also asked the editor who wrote the text to comment on it so hopefully the two of you can work this out. –panda (talk) 14:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of Marx
More Neocon Vandalism? Twice now Vision Thing has removed from the criticisms section of the Wiki entry on Capitalism one particular contribution to the debate about the acceptability to capitalism of unfree labor. The reference in question is a book by Brass, Towards a Comparative Political Economy of Unfree Labor, a text published in 1999 consisting of articles appearing throughout the 1980s. Even the least bright member of humanity will appreciate that, in chronological terms this text precedes that on the same subject by Marcel van der Linden, published in 2003. Either the latter also goes, or both van der Linden and Brass stay. I am posting this on your website, where it is one of many similar objections to interventions by you in areas where your competence to do so is – how shall I say this – not of the greatest. 8 April 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.103.64 (talk) 18:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Holiday
Hi, I'm going away for a short Holiday, do you think you could hold down Economic freedom, Opposition to trade unions and Milton Friedman while I'm away? If J.R. Hercules keeps adding POV, you may wish to use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/J.R._Hercules. Thankyou. Larklight (talk) 19:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Requesting your input at WikiProject Economics/Featured Article drive
Since you are a member of WikiProject Economics, I would like to direct your attention to WikiProject Economics/Featured Article drive. We are currently deciding on an economics-related article to bring to Featured Article status and we would like your input. Thanks! Gary King ( talk ) 14:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Capitalism External Link
Why did you add back in the external link without giving a reason or discussing it further on the relevant section of the talk page? Munci (talk) 07:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

National Socialism / Socialism In One Country
In the mid to late 1920s the term national socialism was occasionally used by Trotsky as an epithet to describe Stalin and Bukharin's theory of socialism in one country.

I think the key word here is "epithet". Trotsky is using the term "national socialism" to attack his opponents in a debate about the Soviet Union. It's a fairly standard journalistic trick. I do think the two terms refer to different things and it's misleading to appear to conflate them. BTLizard (talk) 09:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

regarding economic freedom
In the hopes that we're going to continue civilly, I request that you be careful about WP:3RR in the future. Cretog8 (talk) 13:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the warning, but it wasn't neccessary. -- Vision Thing -- 15:49, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Competition law
Could I ask you to say which parts/sentences in the article are not neutral please: and write them on the talk page?  Wik idea  09:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going to place the image back on that page. There was far from any consensus to delete it. Bearian (talk) 18:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've also placed a clause in the lede that might be helpful in balancing things out. See the talk page for more of my reasoning. Bearian (talk) 18:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I agreed and reverted myself. :-) Bearian (talk) 18:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Patience
My patience with you wears thin. To my mind, you're not a terribly interesting contributor, and you demonstrate that you don't really know much. I would kindly ask that you stick to editting the anarchy pages and don't venture into subjects on which you are not educated enough to express an opinion.  Wik idea  17:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * When you add sources, I suggest you do it properly. As you can see in the FA Law article, there is a notes section, and a references section. Full data are supposed to go to the References section. Please, check how the other sources are cited, and act accordingly. Regards.--Yannismarou (talk) 19:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Proudhon property issues
Nice edit. I suggested a possible correction. I'm too busy doing original research to do much more than fact-check here right now, so I shouldn't be in your hair much. Anything you do to clarify the What is Property? seems like a win-win for all "sides." Holler at me if I can help. Libertatia (talk) 19:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for correction. Good luck with your work. -- Vision Thing -- 19:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggesting Changes to Milton Friedman Article
I've requested a reassessment of the good article status of the Milton Friedman article based on lack of neutrality, and have added a POV tag to the article. Please join the discussion, if you are interested. Thanks. Jdstany (talk) 03:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

History of economic thought POV
Hello--Could you put some comments on the talk page about the POV problems you see? C RETOG 8(t/c) 23:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've tagged the article because of Wikidea's reduction of Chicago section and Protonk's comments on talk. However, since then I've expanded Chicago section and some of Protonk's concerns were addressed so if you think that the article is neutral feel free to remove the tag. -- Vision Thing -- 16:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I have no opinion; I've barely read the article, I'm just hoping to get rid of ugly tags on what's been set up as one of the top Economics articles. If you think your POV dispute is settled, then the tag should go away, otherwise it should still be worked on. C RETOG 8(t/c) 16:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Significance of Marxist economics
Aw, c'mon! The Marxists provided essential intellectual infrastructure for systems that killed tens of millions of people! How can the Austrian School possibly match them in significance? —SlamDiego&#8592;T 20:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Persistent, disruptive editing by User:Vision_Thing
I've been hoping that you'll change your behaviour for a long time - and because it's never too late, maybe you will - but now I'm asking for intervention. You have the chance to justify your actions and leave a message here.  Wik idea  11:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

the words "and Arab" in section Marx and antisemitism
Please see Talk:Karl Marx, which I updated to ask a question regarding an edit you made to the article.&mdash;GraemeMcRaetalk 22:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

RFC at WP:NOR-notice
A concern was raised that the clause, "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" conflicts with WP:NPOV by placing a higher duty of care with primary sourced claims than secondary or tertiary sourced claims. An RFC has been initiated to stimulate wider input on the issue. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)