User talk:SlamDiego/Archive 2
thank you so much for the improvements. At the time, I was writing a paper on marginal utility and wasn't sure if I understood it completely, so I looked to wikipedia for some help... obviously I was dissapointed. Had this version of the article been there then, I'm sure it would've helped me a lot. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xiaoxitu (talk • contribs) 03:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC).
Good job on the marginal utility article. I'm glad someone finally showed up who understands it more thoroughly than me and others. You may want to improve the marginalism article too. Also the labor theory of value, subjective theory of value, and paradox of value articles may be of interest. Thanks for your efforts.Anarcho-capitalism 01:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. After I've done some more work on that article, I plan to tackle the Marginalism article. I may deal with some of the others later. —SlamDiego 01:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
By the way, if you could provide sources that would be great, otherwise the information is eventually going to be deleted by someone who doesn't like what it says.Anarcho-capitalism 01:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- The history section has lots of explicit referencing, so I assume that your concern is for the earlier section. I could put sourcing thereïn, but a problem would be that those same foes could reject any of the potential sources. —SlamDiego 01:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, according to policy, as long as the sources are from books that are not self-published by the authors or from articles that were published in journals, they they can't reject them. If they delete sourced information, it's considered disruptive and vandalistic. If something is not sourced, according to policy, anyone is free to delete it. And believe me they will.Anarcho-capitalism 01:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't deny your point. It's just that there's a limit to what can be done here. —SlamDiego 02:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
iNic
editIf you want to persuade iNic to change his style, please find a more productive way of doing it. Wading in with template "final warnings" is heavy-handed in the extreme, especially when you are heavily involved in the article concerned. You could try dialogue or you could try dispute resolution. That might actually work :-) Guy (Help!) 10:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- It may be heavy-handed, but surely not in the extreme. ;-) In any event, as a practical matter I will consider dispute resolution, but he plainly was willing to damage the article simply to achieve some sort of personal triumph. —SlamDiego 03:40, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Calling my warning to iNic “bullshit” was coarse and otherwise uncivil. iNic willfully damaged the article — albeït with the pretext that he would thereby motivate me to rewrite a passage to his satisfaction. Willfully damaging an article is vandalism, plain-and-simple.
- iNic deleted my edit to St. Petersburg paradox not on the ground that the edit had been incorrect, but with the demand that any such edit must simultaneously
- be brief
- have the full conceptual content of the lengthy discussion that had taken place on the talk page
- In other words, he attempted to impose a transparently over-difficult (perhaps impossible) demand.
- This came after he had failed in that discussion to show that the point in question could be dismissed as mistaken.
- He subsequently defended his deletion of this appropriate content based on the assertion that he would thereby motivate me to rewrite the article to his satisfaction. (I had two or three times invited him to flesh-out the point to his satisfaction.[1]) —SlamDiego 03:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- I further note that iNic summoned you after seeing that you'd previously blocked me. Quite something, given that you justified that block with a claim. that was demonstrably false —SlamDiego 04:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)