User talk:Vision Thing/Archive4

Capitalism
I saw that Introman edited your inclusion of state provided goods and services in the capitalism article. He seems to be confused about what capitalism is. If you need a partner in dealing with him let me know as I'm a PhD economics student and instructor. I'm also in complete agreement with you that there are state provided goods and services in a capitalist system. This is also what the rest of the article says. Introman states on his page that he only writes intros and that the body of the article is “beneath him”. Given this, he should not run around changing intros into something that is completely inconsistent with the rest of the text. Is there somewhere to report him? I’m new to Wikipedia so I’m not sure. MoralMoney (talk) 05:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Austrian School: First sentence, second paragraph "...The Austrian School" please change it to "the Austrian School" (lower case "the"). It's killing me and I'm blocked. Thanks. - SlaveryOrDeathSaysTheBanker (talk) 13:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'm finished (permanently barred, being tracked and shot down at every move).  My last edits are shown here in red on the left hand column (KeepGoldThrowBondsAway).  You may want to pick and choose which of these edits should be re-inserted, in your considered, non-biased view.  I really strongly believe Pascal Salin should be deleted.  He's a pro-FRB pro-bank Mont Pelerin Society infiltrator who was a disruptive influence within Austrianism and is now thrown up by mainstreamers on every occasion to defend against Rothbard, Polliet, Shostak, de Soto, and other FullRB supporters.  He should be removed in the lede and replaced by Lew Rockwell, or Walter Block.  Good luck keeping balance against the onslaught of the barbarians.  I'm out of the game.

Competition law
You have other editors willing to help out if you ever decide to take another look at competition law. I have a list of suggestions on the talk page. THF (talk) 11:42, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Typos on Austrian School
Sorry, if you have the time, please remove the unnecessary full stop to the right of the 3,4 footnotes. I'm blocked and you've helped out in the past. It's not your fault, but you're one of the only genuine editors out there. Thx. - WatchinTheTideRollAway (talk) 01:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Karl Marx
What consensus version? I believe that particular proposal failed: Flagged revisions/Consensus versions.

Keep in mind that should you baselessly remove my factual and referenced material on the debate of Marx and antisemitism without an appropriate justification again, I will be reporting you.PasswordUsername (talk) 02:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

But it would be POV to simply imply things that are well rejected by historians. Where was this consensus reached, and how long ago? May I have a peek? PasswordUsername (talk) 19:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. But why are you so adamntly against adding a 20-word paragraph? This is material not previously discussed in the "On the Jewish Question" article -- where the consensus decided to move the lengthy allegations of anti-Semitism you posted -- and it gives the mainstream rebuttal to the "Marx called Lasalle a 'Jewish nigger'." PasswordUsername (talk) 19:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the "consensus version" agreed to at the end of August 2008 didn't have any references to Marx's remark: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Karl_Marx&oldid=235477337. That was added in afterwards...

Has your position on consensus changed after you had your edit inserted? PasswordUsername (talk) 19:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Requests for arbitration and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Requests for arbitration;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eduen (talk • contribs) 12:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

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/individualist anarchism, 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, Eduen (talk) 06:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe this is a kind of provocation. Be cautios with this new user. Have a good day. --Nihilo 01 (talk) 02:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi! You know which are the templates of "original source" or "essay" for these two articles of Eduen: Anarchist naturism and Individualist anarchism in Europe. I don't trust in the consistence of content with the refferences, and even I'm dubious of relevance of the issues. --Nihilo 01 (talk) 19:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
For dropping in on Fascism where you have been instantly reverted, it would appear :(. Collect (talk) 19:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * And aspersions are being gleefully cast -- you might well wish to look in again. Collect (talk) 00:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Fascism
Hi Vision Thing.

I'd like it if you felt you were able to discuss the changes you would like to see made on the Fascism page in talk, rather than repeatedly deleting properly sourced material which has the support of other editors, without discussion. As I have indicated a few days ago, I think the minor objections you have raised about the paragraph are potentially resolvable, but they are not justification for deleting the whole thing, particularly if it is in favour of material that is badly sourced.

Many thanks. --89.242.184.16 (talk) 23:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Breaking WP:BLP
VT, you have twice reintroduced misleading, improperly sourced, critical comments into a biography of a living person, once after I have warned you to be careful about doing so. You are breaking Wikipedia policy. Please stop. I have added a sourced statement about Paul Krugman's actual position on the housing bubble in 2002. In the future, please research your subject before adding critical comments into biographies of living persons. LK (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Fascism in the political spectrum
The RfC on Fascism has now run one month and there are now two versions of the intro para:


 * Most scholars do not find the terms right and left very useful with regard to fascism, which incorporated elements of both left and right, rejected the main currents of leftist and rightist politics, and attracted adherents from both ends of the political spectrum. Hence, fascism can be called sui generis. Some scholars do place fascism squarely on the right or left.


 * Most academics describe fascism as extreme right, radical right, far right or ultra right; some calling it a mixture of authoritarian conservatism and right-wing nationalism. However, there exists a dissenting view that fascism represents radical centrism. Moreover, a number of writers highlight aspects of some types of fascist ideology which may typically be associated with the left.

Could you please comment at Talk:Fascism.

The Four Deuces (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You should be aware that a 1RR restriction has been placed on Fascism. You may make only one revert in a given 24 hour period; it is not punishment but is intended to force discussion and hopefully consensus. I have also posted the restriction at WP:AN.. Krakatoa  Katie  04:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Following this RfC, there is currently a proposal regarding the issue of whether or not it is appropriate to characterise fascism as "right-wing".

Even if you don't have much to say, it would be useful if you could let your view be known in order to guide the discussion towards some sort of conclusion.

Please take a look: here.

Thank you. --FormerIP (talk) 22:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Krugman
You need to use the talk page prior to reverting working. Scribner (talk) 13:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Fascism
Because I have no objection to the content of Four Deuces' edit. And also because he made it after that wording had been under discussion for about two weeks, with most editors supporting it. I'm sure we can get there without edit-warring, but only if no-one reaches for their pistols too quickly. --FormerIP (talk) 21:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Er, okay if that's what you want. --FormerIP (talk) 22:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Krugman
Article tagged POV for your changes, use the talk page. Scribner (talk) 15:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Left-right politics reversions
Hi! I noticed you and Rick Norwood have been reverting each other's work on Left-right politics. Why don't you two discuss your differences on the talk page? PStrait (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Before I noticed the reversions, I added a section in the chart on the article about how the right and the left both oppose science in their own way -- the left is hostile to genetically modified food and nuclear power (and on the extreme fringe, things like vaccines). The (Christian) right is hostile to orthodox beliefs regarding climate change and humanity's role in causing it, the teaching of evolution, scientific treatment of the Bible (i.e., historical and textual criticism), stem cell research, human cloning, etc.


 * As for the question of original research, it seems to me like both parties could be satisfied if you quote from some source that draws a general conclusion about the views of the Right or the Left regarding science, rather than by establishing this inductively (i.e., by presenting many examples of people on the right or the left attacking or supporting science). PStrait (talk) 14:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think you are correct re: your comment that no referenced sources draw conclusions about the relationship each side of the political spectrum has with science. For example, see Levin, Yuval. Imagining the Future: Science and American Democracy. Encounter Books, October 2008.  I think it is not terribly controversial to identify a few trends: there is a certain Luddite element in the Left that opposes biotechnology and nuclear power, just as there is a certain traditionalist element in the Right that opposes stem cell research, the teaching of evolution, etc.  But I welcome opposing viewpoints -- I just think the debate needs to be centered on what the sources actually say...  PStrait (talk) 23:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Fascism
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 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. (As explained to you about this article is subject to WP:1RR.) The Four Deuces (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

FWIW Collect (talk) 21:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Krugman
I posted a reply at the article's talk page. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:59, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Classy move
Very classy move VT. It was extremely nice of you to report me for 3RR instead of warning or suggesting I self-revert. Part of your general campaign to encourage politeness I guess. BTW, on the 4th revert, the person I reverted left this message on my talk page 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.

Thanks again, LK (talk) 08:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Paul Krugman
Could you please explain your recent edits to Paul Krugman at Talk:Paul Krugman. The Four Deuces (talk) 09:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Please tag as dubious any content before cleansing. There's nothing in the article that's objectionable enough to remove at this point. Scribner (talk) 16:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello VT, the ref your adding is an Op-Ed and defames the subject of the BLP. Please refrain from adding opinion sourced material that defames in BLP articles.   The Economist, Face Value: Paul Krugman, one-handed economist


 * http://www.economist.com/opinion Thanks! Scribner (talk) 17:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The information you're posting fails WP:Verify. Scribner (talk) 17:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Please read the section on WP:BLP. Scribner (talk) 18:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Similar usernames
Hi, I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Usernames for administrator attention. Feel free to comment there. Lady of  Shalott  14:35, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Alan Greenspan
That article's been tagged "unbalanced" for negative, poorly sourced material in the lead. I noticed your comment on the Krugman article. Scribner (talk) 22:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Material removed. That's not a statement of policy yet, that Op-ed criticism be omitted from the lead of all BLP's,  but that's where I'm heading right now.  Scribner (talk) 23:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Straw Poll
Hi, you were involved in the discussion at Talk:Ron Paul. A straw poll is currently being conducted to discern concensus. Soxwon (talk) 02:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Vision Thing. I've put forward another proposal in an attempt to resolve the content dispute at Ron Paul. Please take a look and let me know what you think. Thanks! Nick Graves (talk) 17:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

John Maynard Keynes
Hey there. Ive been told the neutrality dispute needs to be resolved before Keynes can be promoted to good article status. So here I am to ask if you have any objection to the neutrality tag being removed? Id already added what seemed to be your strongest sources to the resurgence section. When I go to rewrite the main resurgence article once the various books being written on the subject are published, i expect to be including all your sources in that. Hope this is acceptable? FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I really appreciate your consideration. I think considering the space its now biased in the other direction so hopefully it balances out. When I come to exspand the main resurgence article I will try to fully represent the critical views, if no one else has done so. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Accusations of plagiarism further substantiated, now referred to User:SlimVirgin
Susan Leschman also alerted. Details moved here, since Rd232 removed them from the Paul Krugman Talk page. Please don't tell me that you can delete whole paragraphs from an article just because a citation was missing a page number (that it didn't even need), criticizing the scholarly credentials of the contributor, but you somehow don't know that it's not only against Wikipedia policy but against international copyright law to copy from blogs, books, and other copyrighted material without attribution. Yakushima (talk) 10:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Fascism
Hi, I was wondering if you might like to take a look at the current revision of Fascism and chime in at Talk. Cheers. Factchecker atyourservice (talk) 06:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Econ Wikiproject
I find your edits of Great Depression troubling. I would like to let you know that I have initiated a discussion at the Econ Wikiproject talk page. LK (talk) 14:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

RfC at WT:ECON
I've reformulated the proposed guidelines based on your and other's comments. I would appreciate it if you could have a look and further comment there. thankyou, --LK (talk) 15:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Mediation for WikiProject Economics Guidelines
A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning WikiProject Economics Guidelines has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/WikiProject Economics Guidelines and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, LK (talk) 07:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

ANI
There is a discussion at ANI in which you might be interested.--Die4Dixie (talk) 17:04, 6 October 2009 (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.

Listed IAF article for deletion
Hello. I've listed the IAF article for deletion here I've noticed that you played a part in discussion at this page and would like your input. Peace and happy editing. 0nonanon0 (talk) 00:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

New Mediation
WP:RfM/WikiProject Economics Guidelines has been aborted by the departure of skip sievert. I will file a new RfM.

I've noticed that you'd not been actively involved in the Mediation, nor otherwise edited with your account in about a week. I would not want the Mediation to be rejected for lack of your agreeing to participate within the deadline at filing, so I will leave you of the list of disputants unless you add your name to the list at “New Mediation”. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 12:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Capitalism
An editor is questioning the lack of sources in the lead for Capitalism. If you would like to discuss this please reply on the talk page. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Social liberalism
Could you please discuss this subject on the talk page rather then edit-warring. Your added text is irrelevant to the subject and I would like to avoid an RfCRfC/A which is time-consuming for everyone. It would be helpful if you would read about the topic so that you could make informed contributions. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This comment --^ to another editor sounds like hectoring rhetoric instead of actual constructive editing suggestion. It is noted that you also edit with L.K. J.Q. and Cretog8 on Economics/Social science articles, to I believe a detriment of information... more here I see a distinct pattern of harassment and wikihounding toward users by this group which includes yourself. That is my opinion. skip sievert (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Your comment: "I have noticed that you have a custom of warning other editors to stop "edit warring", while at the same time you don't see nothing wrong with edit warring when you are doing the reverting." -- Vision Thing -- 13:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

That is incorrect. Almost all the warnings I have made have gone to clearly tendentious editors like the suspected sockpuppets of User:RJII who were making clearly disruptive edits. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If you think I have been unfair to you that is one thing. But there is no reason to speculate about other editors.  The Four Deuces (talk) 15:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

INd.
Hi Vision Thing, I'm temporary retired (probably until next year) but I reverted to your last version in Individualist anarchism. I have seen that Eduen interventions have become more aggressive and offensive trying to force the others to accept his personal and schollary unsourced oppinions. He always do the same, all of wikipedians have try to help him to understand politics but he doesn´t want to learn. I believe he should receive a several and clear advertence for stop that conduct. --Nihilo 01 (talk) 18:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC) PD: Probably Eduen needs an advertence to keep reach from any article about anarcho-individualism and anarcho-capitalism, because he is a confessed "ancap hater" and is trying to deny the relation between both anarchist currents.


 * Do you believe Skomorokh could do something about?. He is well informed about sectarian anarchist behavior. --Nihilo 01 (talk) 19:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for stopping by and helping. Unfortunately I don't see how Skomorokh could help. He could protect the page, but that would only last a few days. -- Vision Thing -- 13:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for arbitration
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Requests for arbitration and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Requests for arbitration;
 * Arbitration guide.

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

AfD nomination of List of countries by economic freedom
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of countries by economic freedom. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/List of countries by economic freedom. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

deletion discussion
You participated in a previous discussion on the deletion of Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. You may be interested that a new deletion review has begun at WP:Articles_for_deletion/Anarchism_and_anarcho-capitalism_(2nd_nomination). Tb (talk) 22:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Economics census
Hello there. Sorry to bother you, but you are (titularly at least) a member of WP:WikiProject Economics, as defined by this category. If you don't know me, I'm a Wikipedia administrator, but an unqualified economist. I enjoy writing about economics, but I'm not very good at it, which is why I would like to support in any way I can the strong body of economists here on Wikipedia. I'm only bothering you because you are probably one of them. Together, I'd like us to establish the future direction of WikiProject Economics, but first, we need to know who we've got to help.

Whatever your area of expertise or level of qualification, if you're interested in helping with the WikiProject (even if only as part of a larger commitment to this wonderful online encyclopedia of ours), would you mind adding your signature to this page? It only takes a second. Thank you.

Message delivered on behalf of User:Jarry1250 by LivingBot.

WP:Articles_for_deletion/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes_(3rd_nomination) exists
neutral notification Collect (talk) 12:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Austrian School
Hello,

I just wanted to drop a note to thank you for your recent work on the Austrian School article. As I'm sure you've noticed, however, there are some editors who are very keen on reverting edits that seem favorable to the Austrian School, so I hope you stay vigilant. More support for the integrity of this article is sorely needed. Misessus (talk) 11:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I will try to keep my eye on it. In your edits always try to follow Wikipedia rules and guidelines even if others don't. -- Vision Thing -- 20:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I will do my very best, thank you! Misessus (talk) 10:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)