User talk:Lawrencekhoo/Archive 8

warren

The "bold edit" was yours[1] in removing material long in a BLP - and BRD says one revert - then you need to discuss your bold edit there. I looked and looked and did not find the sourced material to be "POV smearing" and, alas, WP:BLP does not say "remove POV smearing" in any event. Your proper course is to present your desired edit on the BLP talk page and see how WP:CONSENSUS develops. Cheers. I suspect the discussion will be fruitful. Collect (talk) 13:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The 'bold' edit was the original insertion of controversial material a couple of days before I reverted it. You then reinserted that controversial new material into a BLP twice, without communicating on the talk page about this issue. I shouldn't have to explain this to you. This is conduct quite unbecoming of an admin. Your proper course of action is to step back from this BLP as your political stance appears to have taken over your better judgement. LK (talk) 09:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Georgism

Nice quote. Thanks for the help on research.Whomyl (talk) 04:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

A request for Arbitration has been made for America: Imagine a World Without her

The request can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case Casprings (talk) 17:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Lawrencekhoo, this is just a courtesy note to let you know that this case has been declined. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:57, 7 February 2015 (UTC).

Al Gore & the VFW

Hello, The Veterans of Foreign Wars (capital first letters) is a specific US organization so the namesake category is not meant to include all "veterans who served overseas" (lower case first letters). I added a hatnote to the category to try and make the intended use clearer. Mr. Gore served in the Vietnam War so his military service is included in the article categorization with Category:American military personnel of the Vietnam War. (Gore actually was a member of a VFW fraternal lodge for a few years but that fact isn't even mentioned in the article and probably wouldn't be defining under WP:COPDEF/WP:NON-DEFINING.)

Based on that background, are you OK with me removing Category:Veterans of Foreign Wars from the Al Gore article? RevelationDirect (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. My bad. Sorry, should have done more research before my revert. Best, LK (talk) 03:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

BLP Discretionary sanctions notice

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Dreadstar ☥ 07:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Figure

Dear Lawrencekhoo,

I would like to use the figure http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_GDP_10-60.jpg in my book entitled 'Your Future Job: How to Build a Career in the New Normal.' The book is intended for 17 to 22 year-olds, and is about just what the title says.

I believe the figure is public domain, which means I can use it. But this is commercial use, so I respectfully request your permission.

Thank you,

Dan Jelski danjelski@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.67.104 (talk) 20:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Please feel free to use it. An attribution to the Wikimedia common page (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_GDP_10-60.jpg) would be nice, but not necessary, since it's released to the public domain. Regards, LK (talk) 04:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Caroline Hoxby

Thank you for your response regarding the Caroline Hoxby article. There is in fact a reliable source for Hoxby's denial: she immediately wrote a letter of complaint to the Crimson, which was published at the time. Another editor noticed this a few years ago and posted it on the talk page:

I found the letter to the Crimson in which Hoxby said she had been misquoted regarding "race and gender bias": http://www.thecrimson.harvard.edu/article/2005/7/15/hoxby-article-presents-slanted-veiw-of/ . I don't think the Wikipedia article should repeat a quotation by a student reporter if the originator of the supposed quotation claims to have been misquoted. --Orlady (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

However, the main reason I am contacting you is that I tried to post this query on the talk page of the article, and it did not seem possible. Can you tell me how to do it? Perhaps if the page is semi-protected, it is impossible to add anything to the talk page as well? From reading Wikipedia's online directions for adding comments, etc. to talk pp. I gather there should normally be an edit button showing. Rubric6 (talk) 04:01, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the race/gender bias statement, since it's disputed and controversial. The Hoxby article has been semi-protected, you'll have to edit a bit more to become an 'auto-confirmed user', then you'll be able to edit the Hoxby page. Rgds, LK (talk) 05:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Printing press

Hi. You did not seem to mind that the article had been for over two years spiralled downward into a cesspool of off-topicness, incompetent ranting combined with petty Korean and Chinese nationalism, but as soon as I restored its contents and quality along the line of typographic printing you have nothing better to do to show up and attack me in the summary line. You couldn't have shown better your colours and class, or rather lack of it.... Gun Powder Ma (talk) 17:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Dear Gun Powder Ma, Please don't leave insults on my talk page. Thank you. LK (talk) 01:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't have any time to check the sources, so I cannot verify the validity of the figures. Best of luck tracking everything down. Pericles of Athens^Talk 05:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 4 May

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Cao Cao page, your edit caused an empty citation error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Contradiction on the fractional reserve banking page.

Given that you recently added the phrase "financial intermediary" to the lede, I think it appropriate that you should comment on the "main page contradicts itself" post on the FRB talk page. Thanks. Reissgo (talk) 16:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Norodom Sihanouk/archive1

Hi Lawrence, thanks for your feedback and suggestions at the PR. I have looked through your recommendations, and while I am not able to agree with a few of your points, please feel free to take look at the explanations that I have input. I do not know how to implement the recommendations on the IPA and "alt" texts that you have raised; please feel free to assist if you are able to, but don't feel obliged if you are unable to do so. I hope to hear from you again :) Mr Tan (talk) 03:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Peter Schiff

Blind reverts are rarely useful: you could have done me the courtesy of addressing individual edits, which would have made you realize that my edits were done judiciously. You turned this article back into a fluffy, resume-style collection of factoids with lousy sourcing, and an atrocious lead. 207.93.13.150 (talk) 14:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Just go slow OK, you removed nearly half the article there. LK (talk) 15:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Ten percent, and that's why I went step by step. 207.93.13.150 (talk) 15:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

November 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Tablespoon may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• In most regions (including the US, UK, most [[Commonwealth of Nations|Commonwealth countries]], East Asia and the

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Money Creation

What objections do you have to the Bank of England Quarterly demystifying money creation?Quarterly Bulletin 2014Q1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by WouNur (talk • contribs) 16:14, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I replied to your post on abortion in the modern liberalism article on my talk page.

If you're really interested in discussing it. VictorD7 (talk) 02:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA

	Hawkeye7 RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating in and supporting my RfA. It was very much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

For Translation

Can you translate this English wiki article "Big Four of Allied power in World War II" to Spanish language and create a Spanish version article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:6B45:500:9168:CE7E:6CBE:3250 (talk) 19:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Refactor at Talk:Hyperinflation

Greetings! I hate refactoring other users' talk page comments, but I felt that, to err on the side of caution, I needed to do it to one of yours at Talk:Hyperinflation. While it is very clear from the sockpuppet investigations that PennySeven has used IP addresses hosted in Portugal, I don't see anything in the archive that addresses the user's nationality or residence. Accordingly, I've struck that part of your comment and replaced it with a comment about the geographical location of the IP addresses.

I wanted to let you know that I did it and why I did it. If you'd like to discuss this matter further, feel free to continue this conversation via talk page or email. —C.Fred (talk) 20:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Dear Fred, I totally understand. If you look at the PennySeven SPI archives, the investigations link him with an earlier banned user User:Nicolaas Smith (PennySeven socks edited the Nicolaas Smith talk page). User Nicolaas Smith edited quite extensively in the past, and made clear who he was and what book he had written. I believe that makes it public information. Regards, LK (talk) 04:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Also this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Nicolaas_Smith/Archive#Report_date_October_24_2009.2C_05:30_.28UTC.29

LK (talk) 04:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Forty or 2000 page per day?

I see your edition in page Printing Press and put the speed of East printing about 2000 pages per day. However, recently Gun Powder Ma change this edition and put the figure forty per day. There is a huge difference between these two figure. 2000 is 50 times of forty. I wonder which one is the right。 Then the article claim Gutenberg invented the metal movable printing without source. However, in my memory it was first invented by Korean. Can you check these and add some reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:CC:8000:80:B8A0:AC65:7D8C:B16D (talk) 14:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Murray Rothbard

Please do not leave misleading or false edit summaries. There is no discussion for the term "heterodox" on the article talk page, and the version your friend Srich attempted to change the Lede to is clearly not consensus - in fact it appears that your friend SRich and a pair of suspicious IP editors are the only editors pressing for it.

Assuming good faith of course that SRich is neither the University Of Chicago IP nor the middle of nowhere China IP... which looks suspiciously like someone using a proxy. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 02:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

A search for "heterodox" in the talk page archives yields links to several discussions on the issue. I don't see what you hope to gain by stating something so easily disproved. Also, open proxies are routinely blocked by Wikipedia. There is no reason to believe that the IPs you point to are open proxies. Its not OK to make accusations about abusing open proxies without evidence. LK (talk) 12:58, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Paul Singer (businessman)". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 7 June 2016.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 20:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

new user needing guidance

LK, I'm a wiki rookie interested in contributing a substantive piece on secular stagnation. I would appreciate any help or guidance you might offer.

I'm something of a subject matter expert on the topic, having written a book about 2/3 devoted to a permanent or at least sustained slowdown in material progress (approximately equal to economic growth for these purposes). C. Owen Paepke, The Evolution of Progress, Random House, 1993. I have stayed current with the subject matter and believe I could do justice to the 40 year history, the arguments for and against a systemic slowdown, and the four extant theories for why it might have occurred now after 200 years of rapid growth. I've had sporadic dialogs with some academics on the topic.

The current Wikipedia treatment is inadequate. Reading the talk page over the weekend, I saw what looked like a running ideological duel between Marek and EllenCT, which seemed to me better suited to a blog than an encyclopedia. I posted a long section on the talk page. As of this morning, that talk page seems to have gone away (so I don't know if anyone replied), and the comment that the article was under review has vanished. (The inner workings of Wikipedia remain a mystery to me, and I am content for them to stay that way.)

Doing a quality job on this would take me a few months. Though generally current, I would need to get a better understanding of Krugman and Cowen's thoughts and Gordon's most recent writings, as well as the Green take on this. I'm willing, even happy, to do this, but not if I'll just get caught in a crossfire and the effort will be wasted.

I read your comments to Marek and Ellen, which I thought were constructive (and likely to be disregarded). I welcome your thoughts on (1) whether a comprehensive rewrite on this topic would add value and (2) how to navigate the somewhat tendentious cross-currents apparent in the recent dialog. I'm offering because I think I am well versed on this subject and that it has practical significance.

I will await your reply here before proceeding. I don't have a page, as I don't plan to be a serial contributor.

Thank you for your time. 24.249.186.213 (talk) 17:28, 6 June 2016 (UTC) Owen Paepke

Hi sorry for the delay in replying. I wasn't certain how to respond. I don't really have much advice to give. Just jump in and start editing. I suggest starting with something small, it's easier to see how things work if you edit a paragraph and see how people respond. Don't make a whole new version of a page before submitting. Wikipedia pages usually grow incrementally. Also, lastly, if possible always back up your edits with a source. I think the most trouble that new editors have with Wikipedia is that they don't understand the strict requirements for sourcing that Wikipedia has. Anything likely to be challenged should be backed up with a reliable source that's not self-published. Anything not backed up with a reliable source can be removed.

If you face any trouble, feel free to ask me for help, or to ask at the Economics wikiproject talk page. Best of luck, and have fun editing! LK (talk) 00:12, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Paul Singer (businessman), to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 09:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Systemic bias

I would like to discuss the systemic bias issue with you off-wiki. Do you have a preferred method of contact? EllenCT (talk) 12:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't have anything to add to my previous advice. Respect the process, do the research to bring high quality sources, report them truthfully, and play nice. LK (talk) 01:11, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

There is no way to respect the process and bring high quality sources both, at this point. I have some statistics I have collected which I would like to discuss. I am not allowed to discuss them with you here. Are you willing to have a conversation about this off-wiki? EllenCT (talk) 14:31, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

RfC policy category

As can be seen by the RfCs listed on the RfC policy page, some are about questions of implementation of the policy. - And the existence of improper usage does not justify the creation of more improper usage. As I tried to convey, virtually every RfC has something to do with implementation of one policy/guideline or another, so that can't possibly be the intent of the category. It just fails a logic test. Also, bad form to revert someone else on article talk page. - Really? I wasn't aware that it's "bad form" to correct a significant misuse of the RfC template. Anyway, your change reverted the RfC creator's non-use of that category, so that assertion is more than a little hypocritical. Or does your rule apply only to the removal of something? No need to reply. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I can find nowhere that states that the RfC policy page should only discuss changes to policy, and that discussions about implementation of policy is (in your words) "improper usage". Your logic is tortured, I added the category as part of reformulating the RfC to what I felt was a more appropriate question. The original poster reverted my addition. One cannot revert the non-use of a category. If that were so, every addition to an article would be a reversion. LK (talk) 05:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

It's your talk page, so you must be right. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Question - this is my talk page - but I assume you are talking about something else? If so what? I'm genuinely curious. LK (talk) 06:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

If you're referring to my preceding comment, I only meant that your response to my very logical argument is to resort to legalisms and to call it "tortured". Given that, continuing would probably only result in you removing the "discussion", as per your right on your own talk page and your statement at the top: "Note: I reserve the right to keep and archive only those conversations I deem relevant to Wikipedia." I know when I'm wasting my time, and I don't edit war, and I'm not going to start an RfC on the purpose of that RfC category. So I surrender, congratulations. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Ehh, it never crossed my mind to remove this. If you check my history, I only remove stuff that is clearly off-topic and/or people being excessively rude. LK (talk) 06:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

RFC comments

It is very VERY common, and keeping with the accepted practices, for comments to be added immediately following an editor's !vote, and to also have an "Extended Discussion" section or a "Threaded Discussion" section. See the following for an example. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks#rfc_EC3234A . Please do NOT move my, or anyone else's comments to an "Extended Discussion" section.

Kodak Black

Hi,

Just wanted to check what was up with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kodak Black? Just a quick read through the article appears to show it meeting GNG and NMUSIC, along with more on the talk page. Would you consider withdrawing the nomination? Thanks, Mdann52 (talk) 15:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Widthdrawn RfC

If you wish to declare a consensus, feel free, but do so outside of the withdrawn RfC. Same subsection would be fine, but certainly outside of the closed part. Marteau (talk) 09:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Initiators do not 'own' a RfC, and they certainly do not get to write the consensus statement for it. If you feel that my closing statement is wrong, you are free to challenge it at Dispute resolution or at ANI. LK (talk) 14:14, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Information

Hello, my name is Joseph I am working on a project about The Great Depression, and searching for information I found your graphic of the US GDP between 1910-1960, so, I would like to know if you could gave me the datums you used to make the grafic. It's because I want to do a graphic but with percentatges. I would be so grateful if you could do this little favor for me. Your sincerely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.174.132.72 (talk) 15:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

The sources for the data is listed on the pages of the graphics. Here and here.

You get find them online here and here. LK (talk) 02:06, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Federal debt

I noticed you are the creator of [File:Federal Debt Held by the Public 1790-2013.png]. It's three years later now; do you happen to feel like updating this to keep it timely? Clean Copy^talk 14:50, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Already done by someone else, see [2]. LK (talk) 11:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Manual of Style

Hello Lawrence. This is just a message to let you know that I have recently initiated a 'support/opposition' section at the RfC discussing the issues surrounding the use of "quote boxes" (here). As you previously expressed a view on this issue over at the MoS talk page several days ago, you may wish to reiterate your opinion in a 'support/oppose' format. Best, Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Undoing Deflation edits

After anti-deflationary bias in original article was fixed and speculative statements (not supported by sources) rephrased. You undo whole commit, based on your gut feelings.

My change was addition of this:

also ... Opposing opinion is also widespread among economists: (examples)

then

A deflationary spiral is an imaginable situation Which is better than original "situation", which creates perspective that such kind of situation might exists.

then you removed explanation of this: Actual existence of a deflationary spiral effect is under question due to empirical and theoretical evidences.

I think undoing your undo is right way to go, until then we need to put POV on that article.

23:33, 9 September 2016‎ 134.134.139.76 (talk)‎ . . (56,808 bytes) (+1,193)‎ . . (→‎Deflationary spiral) 03:58, 9 September 2016‎ 192.55.55.41 (talk)‎ . . (55,615 bytes) (+1,638)‎ . . (Added: marked "deflation is a problem" as a speculation. Added citation needed for arguable claim (claim not Author of commits. 192.55.54.36 (talk) 02:07, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Few more things about Deflation Article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Deflation&action=history 1. Removal of "speculation" tag. Why? Paragraph is clearly a speculative statement and original research:

• Economists generally believe that deflation is a problem in a modern economy because...*

No sources that support that statement. Link is bogus - and doesn't confirm statement.

2. Removal of

• Opposing opinion is also widespread among economists:*

which is immediately supported by link to opinion of economist, Philipp Bagus. Who wrote a book and papers on subject.

3. Currently "Deflationary spiral" chapter is misleading. I changed it to: *A deflationary spiral is an imaginable situation*

I added relevant RS link to study done by economists Atkeson and Kehoe.

• According to economic study done by Atkeson and Kehoe there is no statistically significant connection between depression and deflation*

Can you please elaborate on why you twice undid those edits? Hamdui24 (talk) 04:14, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

September 2016

Hello, I'm SNUGGUMS. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Energy Conservation page edits

Hello Lawrence (I guess). Regarding the energy conservation page. Just to let you know that I re-rolled back your recent roll back and then placed the offending external links in <ref> tags – acceptable but not ideal practice. This process preserved the original text and left the article in much the same condition as before but without in-text URLs. I don't think it a good idea to make edits that leave the text damaged, whatever the reasons for the change. Best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 17:06, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Nobel Prize in Economics

Hello Lawrencekhoo, I am wondering why you undid my changes to the page of Joseph Stiglitz and Eugene Fama regarding the Nobel Prize? In fact, the original Swedish title even says "Sveriges riksbanks pris i ekonomisk vetenskap till Alfred Nobels minne". To my mind this is an important information and should be added to the Wikipedia pages of the recipients of the price since the price was funded by the central bank. Besides, the Nobel family distanced themselves from the prize (https://rwer.wordpress.com/2010/10/22/the-nobel-family-dissociates-itself-from-the-economics-prize/) Although you seem to be busy making sure that academic mainstream opinion is represented on Wikipedia, I am not sure whether mainstream depiction of the prize should trump factual background information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Socialsciencesguru (talk • contribs) 22:58, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

On Wikipedia we have a rule, follow the reliable sources. We call things according to what reliable sources call things. You get the following results if you do a google news search on the phrases:

• awarded "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences" 1760 results
• awarded "Central Bank of Sweden" "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences" 3 results
• awarded "Nobel Prize in Economics" 7240 results
• awarded "Central Bank of Sweden" "Nobel Prize in Economics" 9 results

Looking at the result pages, it's pretty clear that reliable sources call it the Nobel Prize in Economics, or less popularly, the "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences". I can come up with dozens of examples easily. No reliable sources that I can find call it the "Central Bank of Sweden Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences". Hence we should not as well. LK (talk) 03:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Of course the reliable source is the way to go in most cases but precisely as it says on the page: " making sure that all majority and significant minority views". In this case, I think the family of Nobel himself is obviously a very significant source. If Wikipedia covered only major sources, we would have quite few contemporary scandals exposed on Wikipedia because at the time they do not always figure prominently in the news but it would in my view violate the spirit of Wikipedia to exclude facts that are arguably very relevant. So if reliable sources exclude an important information, does the reliable source rule still apply? This is why we also include "significant minority views" on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Socialsciencesguru (talk • contribs) 10:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. This is exactly the situation that Jimbo was talking about. Unless and until The Guardian, Time Magazine, The New York Times, etc... start referring to the prize as the "Central Bank of Sweden Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences", Wikipedia should not do so. LK (talk) 14:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that simply following mainstream coverage is the way Wikipedia should run. If the NYT leave out crucial information on a given subject, it is websites like Wikipedia where you can go to get the full information. Basically, what you are saying is that mainstream newspaper opinion should be the yardstick for factual information. If, for example, Time Magazine is reluctant to publish a leaked information in their newspaper due to some vested interest, Wikipedia should not follow this (and actually does not) but instead does publish the information. The same applies when major newspaper are slow to respond to a new revelation - Wikipedia shouldn't wait for them to publish it. I spoke to several academics on the issue and received support for my position on this. I think if we continue to disagree on this, it might be useful to get a third opinion on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Socialsciencesguru (talk • contribs) 10:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Socialsciencesguru, I just reverted a lot of your edits after stumbling across them randomly and I am here to explain why and be the third opinion. LK has posted a magnificent explanation of WP:V here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lawrencekhoo Basically, any administrator will agree with LK. Most Reliable Sources omit the "Central Bank of Sweden" bit, so as we can only call it one thing when we mention it, we follow the great majority (but mention all the other issues on the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences article page). NPalgan2 (talk) 11:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

"Presentational Issue"

LK, you're a natural-born teacher with the patience of a saint, but after at least 3 years of bludgeoning, etc. do you really believe this is going to turn out to be a presentational issue? How many central banks are there in the world and how many staff research papers from each and how many self-published hobbyists with their own interpretations? We'll need to ask Watson when the presentational issues will ever be resolved! SPECIFICO talk 16:31, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not like a game of Risk. We can't eliminate opponents and remove them from the board. I can only hope, through discussion, to reach a version of the article that addresses his concerns, while still remaining grounded in mainstream economics. I also hope to educate him on what economics textbook state, and why they are written the way they are, so that he can see that the mainstream point of view is not unreasonable. Also, frankly, I don't think any other strategy works on Wikipedia in the long run, except to bring all reasonable parties into agreement. As long as the other person is being reasonable, I remain willing to talk. I don't really see any other possible resolution. LK (talk) 14:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, WP is not a competitive sport, but neither is it an invitation to self-promoting or ignorant trolls to entangle experts such as you and Famspear in endless rehash of the same POV errors or promotion of the local guru from the institution of the Empire. You told this editor that discussion had failed after you devoted heroic time and attention to his "concerns" almost a year ago on your talk page. Now you're reengaging with him on exactly the same slop in all its meaningless and hideous detail. There's plenty of policy about Tendentious Editing and NPOV and V and on and on that tells us such conduct is not acceptable because it derails the Project. I mean you no disrespect, but is this the best use of everyone's time? There's no point trying to make progress on that article when it's being trolled. There's nothing reasonable about trolling, rehashing, repeating and all the other tricks of the tendentious trade. The other possible resolution is to ignore and if he continues to edit war his nonsense at some point somebody will file an ANI and escort him to other earthly pursuits. SPECIFICO talk 14:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Um...[3] 🐮 SPECIFICO talk 19:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Lawrencekhoo. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to the Wikipedia Selangor Meetup 1

The 3rd Wikipedia Malaysia Meetup had now arrived on Selangor! Pack your bags and your laptop, and meet some fellow Malaysia Wikipedians in the meetup!

• Date: Sunday, 11 December 2016
• Time: 12:00 - 2:00 pm
• Venue: Sudo Brew, 7 Jalan SS 22/11, Damansara Jaya, Petaling Jaya, Selangor (3°7′54.1″N 101°37′16.4″E)
• Medium of communication:
  • English language - for the general overall meetup
  • Malay language - for a special session to discuss ms.wikipedia.org (subject to enough number of participants)

This meetup was initiated by Chongkian and the invitation was written and sent by NgYShung. For more information, see the meetup page. If there is any enquires, feel free to discuss at the talk page or at the Facebook event page. (Delivered: 07:27, 24 November 2016 (UTC))

Let's reduce the environmental impact of the Wikimedia movement!

Hi Lawrencekhoo, please allow me to get in touch because you have stated sympathy with environmental causes on your user page. I would like to invite you to check out the Environmental impact project page on Meta, where I am trying to create some momentum to reduce the environmental impact of the Wikimedia movement. My first goal is to have all the Wikimedia servers run on renewable energy. Maybe you could show your support for this project as well by adding your signature here? Thank you, --Gnom (talk) 21:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Please do chime in

Notability within bios (more specifically

application of wp:GNG/wp:BIO against wp:AUTH/wp:PROF...and both vis-a-vis vagaries of actual practice!)

I.e. - Is Matthew Grow, editor of The Council of Fifty, Minutes, March 1844–January 1846 (The Church Historian's Press, which is an imprint of Deseret Book; 2016), notable? Is Benjamin E. Park, who reviews him here: "The Mormon Council of Fifty: What Joseph Smith’s Secret Records Reveal" (Religion & Politics, September 9, 2016)? Please chime in on a way to determine such questions in a much more consistent manner than at present...here: User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Suggested_fix.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Edits to Full-reserve banking article

Please do not let your financial stake in the trade of academia compromise Wikipedia. You incorrectly claim that a sentence (on widely disseminated reactions to Nakamoto's post-banking crisis comment) is “original research or syntheses of published material”, and your profile page reveals the commercial interests that led you to make this claim. For instance, you declare a preference for “mainsteam academic thought” over objectivity and neutrality. The purpose of “mainsteam academic thought” is to sustain the academic business model at any cost to society, whereas Wikipedia exists for the benefit of all humanity. You also advertize what academic certificates you own, even though Wikipedia follows the example of reputable scholarly journals in not using letters after authors’ names to bolster credibility in the eyes of the gullible. (In an encyclopedia, as in an original research publication, the reliability of the content is supposed to be intrinsic to the content) The syntheses of published material ocurred elsewhere (e.g. the Pacy and Caetano citations that don't fit your ivory-tower weltanschauung), and one of the purposes of an encyclopedia is to record that those syntheses (i.e. secondary sources) exist and are widely disseminated (just like the previous sentences in the same pragraph). You're more than welcome to feel that those widely disseminated syntheses are flawed, but censoring a record of their existence is wrong. If the sentence needs restructing to make it clearer that it is indeed a record of a widely disseminated view (just like the previous sentences in the same pragraph, which you've left in place despite them being structurally and logically eqivalent to the sentence that you want to censor), then go ahead and rearrange it — that's the whole point of the wiki concept. Don't censor it for reasons of self-interest. And don't misrepresent something as “trivia” just because it comes from outside academia. There are about 7 billion of us outside academia, and we pay for you, which isn't trivial! 62.253.25.110 (talk) 14:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Harry Beadles article, and football article leads

Thanks for the message. I'll admit I agree largely with what you say, however as football is not something I'm too familiar with I saw that it was fairly standard to use those words in the leads, so left it alone. I do feel though, that writing just "footballer" while linking to association football is less of an issue, as the latter is a rarely used term and only the article title to distinguish from the various forms of football. I'm curious to see what comes of the discussion now though, but feel because I don't really have a vested interest, or the familiarity with the topic, I won't participate. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I agree that linking "footballer" to association football is a minor issue, although I believe linking "professional footballer" to association football would be more in line with policy. If you do have time, please do join in the discussion on the Wikiproject Football talkpage. I think its always good to have outsiders join in a discussion. Rgds, LK (talk) 02:29, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Kind of Blue

Redirect your efforts here. And "why revert?". Seriously???? You appear experienced an editor enough to be aware of WP:BRD, RIGHT? Dan56 (talk) 18:53, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Trevor Ford

Hi, can you point me in the direction of the discussion that THIS suggestion came from, cheers. Kosack (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Well the consensus seems to be that it's not for the better as you think. I seriously suggest you discuss it at the WP:Football thread you started. Kosack (talk) 06:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

RE: FYI

The person whose bold edit is reverted has the burden of redirecting their efforts to the talk page; "After someone reverts your change, thus taking a stand for the existing version and/or against the change, you can proceed toward a consensus with the challenging editor through discussion on a talk page." (WP:BRD#Process) Dan56 (talk) 01:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

If you'd like me to, I can start an RfC also regarding the placement of the sentence mentioning the album's recording and release dates. If you really want to continue to make a thing out of it... Dan56 (talk) 01:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Just to note that BRD is not policy or guideline. Also, it's doesn't imply that the first revert is free. Both reverter and reverted have a responsibility to work it out. See WP:REVERT -- LK (talk) 05:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

WP:REVERT is neither a guideline nor a policy, but fine. I'll cite a guideline, WP:BOLD: "after a reversion of a bold edit, you might want to be bold in an edit on the talk pages so as not to start an edit war." Also, I think it's safe to assume less-than-good faith when my explanation in the edit summary of "not an improvement" (which it wasn't) is followed by "are you trying to pick a fight?", which is what feels "knee-jerk" to me. Just sayingggg... Dan56 (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Trickle-down image

Lawrencekhoo, can you discuss your reintroduction of the image in Trickle-down economics. Talk:Trickle-down_economics#Image_in_the_lead Seemed there was a consensus to remove it, at least with the current caption which looks very SYN. Morphh ^(talk) 03:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Lin-Manuel Miranda

He has twice been nominated for the Tony Award for Best Lead Actor in a Musical. That is all the references I need to show he's notable as an actor. If it's not enough for you, then feel free to Google it. I'm sure that you'll find dozens of sources calling him an actor. JDDJS (talk) 10:11, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Please read the guideline MOS:BLPLEAD. The lead sentence does not list the notable things the person does, the lead sentence describes the person as he is described in reliable sources. Note the difference LK (talk) 14:36, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

wrong venue

Lawrencekhoo: MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#RfC:_Should_the_.22Concise_Encyclopedia_of_Economics.22_be_blacklisted_or_whitelisted.3F is the wrong venue. If someone would ask for whitelisting of specific links with a rather proper rationale then the whole RfC can be moot in minutes. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:33, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Since you are more familiar with the process, would you mind moving the RfC to what you believe is the right venue? LK (talk) 07:35, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I just did this. If it's approved, I will withdraw the RfC. LK (talk) 07:44, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Jevons paradox

Please review WP:BRD. When your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss it on the article talk page, not to re-revert it, which is the first step to edit warring. During the discussion, the article remains in the status quo ante. Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

You are actively violating policy WP:UNDUE. BRD is a essay. And please do not us BRD to justify reverting back inclusion of disputed material. See WP:BRD-NOT LK (talk) 04:33, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I do not agree that it is UNDUE: the author of the material is a noted and well-respected economist, and an authority on the subject in question, and there's no way that a couple of sentences can be considered to be UNDUE. So, a determination of what is and isn't UNDUE is not cut-and-dried, nor do you get to proclaim it by decree, it comes about as a result of a WP:CONSENSUS discussion between editors.

I also do not agree with your contention that you are simply reverting a (9 month old!!) "bold" inclusion. After that length of time, the material is part of the status quo of the article, but even if it wasn't, you are required to wait for a WP:Consensus of editors if we cannot work out something between us. Saying "I wrote most of the article" and therefore "I will remove it tomorrow" without waiting for consensus is simply not the way things work here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:38, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll call a RfC if you insist, even though it's a waste of everyone's time, because WP:SNOW. Consider it like this, a typical book on a particular topic in economics has about 500 pages and 20 chapters. An article may have (pushing it) about 500 sentences, and 20 sections. Would this off-hand idea from Glaeser's book, AFAIK undiscussed by anyone else, receive a chapter of discussion in a book on Jevons Paradox? If no (and it won't) then there shouldn't be a section on it. Would it receive a 5 page discussion in a book? If no (again, it won't) then it shouldn't have 5 sentences in the Wikipedia article. Really, I shouldn't have to explain this to you. LK (talk) 07:24, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll also note that you were the one to insert it,[4] and I reverted it as soon as I noticed it. You then reintroduced it without justification, which I did not notice. Stating that it's a stable part of the article and so it should stay, is a bit pushing it. A consensus of one is not a consensus. LK (talk) 07:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)