User talk:SlamDiego/Archive 1

Dear SlamDiego:

• Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• Community Portal
• Frequently Asked Questions
• How to edit a page
• How to revert to a previous version of a page
• Tutorial
• Copyrights
• Shortcuts

Don't worry too much about being perfect. Very few of us are! Just in case you are not perfect, click here to see how you can avoid making common mistakes.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Wikipedians try to follow a strict policy of

Hi. I noticed that you've started this article. There is already a longer article on this subject at Republic of Minerva, so I've made your page a redirect. You may want to read over that article and see what you can add. Thanks! Perel 03:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are encouraging waste consumption! You tricked me into believing compressed faecal waste is a yummy dessert that also triples for use as fuel or in construction. Jecowa 09:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take this to that article's talk page. Robert K S 03:28, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was already discussed there. We can relaunch that discussion. —SlamDiego 03:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

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

There are many species/families with a distribution across the northern hemisphere - are you suggesting that all of these should be Americanized? Because of the geographical size, for many of these groups there are bound to be more individuals in the USA/Canada than in the UK/Ireland, but I think you'll have struggle if you extend your new principle to eg ducks, birds of prey or waders. Jimfbleak.talk. 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I am replying on the article's talk page, where principal discussion properly belongs. —SlamDiego 23:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can I violate the 3R? I've just reverted to the original. Anyway, before seeing this message, I made a temporary compromise edit to stop either of us reverting for the time being. I should point out that although you've been quick to invoke policies with regard to civility and reversions, you still haven't shown where the policy behind your original reversion comes from. Jimfbleak.talk. 16:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are having trouble understanding the 3RR, please contact an administrator. —SlamDiego 16:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I was proceeding under the assumption that you knew that Canadian spelling is distinct from American spelling, there was no need for me to go past your earlier concession concerning North American birds. (I am frankly surprised that you thought that Canadians used American spelling.) I have subsequently cited formal Wikipedia policy. —SlamDiego 16:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SlamDiego, thank you for bringing to our attention the fact that you have accused Jimfbleak of libel. This could be construed as a

Identifying libel as such is not even a claim that it should ever be legally actionable. (For example, hard-core proponents of freedom of speech such as Nat Hentoff and Murray Rothbard use the term, yet have bluntly said that libel should be decriminalized and that existing laws should not be invoked even as they remain on the books.) Please understand that no amount of cleverness is going to mystically transform the mere act of identifying a false and derogatory statement about oneself as such into itself a violation of present Wikipedia policy. —SlamDiego 17:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are apparently both unrepentant and unable to see that there are two sides to your dispute with Jimfbleak - to say nothing of being distinctly aggressive - I have blocked you for 24 hours for disruption while you cool off. I have posted this at

You're making things up as you go along. On your talk page, you declared that my writing ‘The word “libel” is certainly neither legalese nor chosen to seem like legalese — it is just a single short word which will stand for “false and derogatory claim”.’ somehow proved that I was making a legal threat. Now you're claiming that I refuse to see that there are two sides in my dispute with Jimfbleak, despite the fact that I repeated asked him for his metric, rather than insisting that he could not provide one. (Further, when the two of use were mistakenly accused with being disruptive, I noted that Jimfbleak as well as I had taken care not to revert anything other than the spelling of “colo[u]r”.) —SlamDiego 19:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've shut me down because I pointed-out how unreasonable was your charge that I'd made a legal threat, and because I am amongst those who have noted that you yourself engaging in personal attacks. (I was utterly unaware, when I noted your personal attack against me, that you have recently been abusive to others as well, but I have since discovered this.) —SlamDiego 19:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I've blocked you briefly because you were being aggressive and disruptive. Hopefully when you've calmed down you'll realise this. I don't actually care about your dispute with Jimfbleak, but if you're going to start flagging down the cops you have to realise that they are going to look at both sides of the dispute. Your characterisation of Jimfbleaks remarks was colo[u]rful but not especially neutral, and the whole thing could have been settled by both of you realising how incredibly trivial the whole dispute was. Really. For what it's worth I don't think either of you has anything to feel smug about, but accusing others of legal infractions over a content dispute is exceptionally unhelpful. If I really thoguht you intended to threaten suit I would have blocked you indefinitely, but I'm sure you didn't (which rather invites the question why you used legal terms). In future, when your disputes with others become heated, I recommend that you step back and take a deep breath before pressing the alarm button, because when an admin finds two

angry mastodons he's likely to shoot the one that's looking angriest first. Guy (Help!) 19:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Your own talk page gives you away. You explicitly claimed that I'd shown that I was making a legal threat just before blocking me, and then adjusted it to another that you think will be believed by most other administrators (as indeed it might). The term “libel” is not particularly legal; it will endure if-and-when freedom of speech really triumphs. The person who got over-heated here was you, which is why you were calling me a “dick”, describing my complaint as “bitching”, and telling others to “fuck off”. Such behavior by an administrator is far more unhelpful to the production of a scholarly project than any mere unwillingness to concede this-or-that point of orthography. —SlamDiego 20:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look, it's like this: you made an aggressive complaint about another user, and your complaint was at least as uncomplimentary as what the other user said to you - plus you called his remarks

oversighted and probably taken to ArbCom or maybe the Foundation. This was not in that league. Guy (Help!) 21:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Here (for the love of God!) are the very first two definitions of “libel” in the American Heritage Dictionary:

1a. A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation. b. The act of presenting such material to the public.

My complaint stated the facts baldly, I did not respond in kind to his attacks, I described his actions baldly. I quoted Jimfbleak, who did not dispute the quotation (or even, for that matter, the fact that his remarks were libel) — all that he did in response was to assert that his objection to my warning had not been to it having been a warning, but to it having included the “stop sign” icon. The reason that this escalated was that I wouldn't politely pretend that “libel” has a more limited definition, and tacitly accept that I had made something like a threat of legal action. There are very good long-run reasons not to accept such a thing; amongst other things, one false charge can later be used to support a later false charge, and it is all the harder to fight the a later charge if one hasn't fought the earlier charges. —SlamDiego 22:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. It covers that point quite nicely. Guy (Help!) 22:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Barberio noted, we were required to post templated warnings. The requirement was formally lifted after I posted the warning. (Indeed, it appears that this conflict helped to effect the change.) I will accept no blame for the rules. —SlamDiego 23:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the person who asked JzG to step back, let me state categorically that I strongly advise you never to type the world libel on the internet. You don't know what it means, you don't know the law, and without demonstrating damages, you have no case. Please do not aruge with be about your use of the word in the non-legal context - just don't do it. As an aside, if you would like someone to advocate for your edits more effectively than you have been doing, feel free to ask me. I have a number of points of advice to give you regarding getting what you want on Wikipedia. However, let me give you step one, which is really, really easy - don't pick fights - JzG isn't angry at you, so don't try to make him such. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but I do know what “libel” means. The point, again, is that “libel” is not a term peculiar to legal action. Please check the American Heritage Dictionary (relevantly quoted above) or all of the defintions in Merriam-Webster. —SlamDiego 22:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I genuinely appreciate your offer to engage in advocacy on behalf of my edits. But I think that you and I have importantly different ideas about what protocols should be followed in pursuing a scholarly project. In any event, I would attend to whatever you might choose to say on behalf of what you regard as the appropriate protocols. —SlamDiego 22:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will let pass other disagreement that you and I have on the course of recent events. —SlamDiego 22:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See, while you were

acting like an angry mastodon, Jimfbleak came up with a really good idea to fix the problem entirely, and make the entire dispute moot. Which leaves him looking like the good guy, and you looking like a jerk. I note that the only admin who ventured an opinion on the block, supported it, also based on your edits to the same article. But hey, feel free to ignore all advice offered, I just hope you don't end up joining the ranks of people who fill up the pages of blogs railing about how they were banned from Wikipedia even though they were right all along. Hipocrite is dead right: if you continue to throw legal terms around, you are going to invite a lot of unwelcome attention. Guy (Help!) 22:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

You keep insisting that I was angry, when I was simply being a stickler for valid argument and fact. When Jimfbleak changed things to “plumage”, my reaction was prompt:

I am fine with “plumage” but note that the article could run into analogous problems in future as it expands.

Jimfbleak afterward wanted to keep arguing that British and American spellings had an equal claim, and I kept asking for his metric, which he never provided. —SlamDiego 23:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why — even in the face of my citing two standard dictionaries — do you pretend that I threw a legal term (let alone legal terms) around? Again, it is your insistence that I admit to something that I didn't do which caused matters to escalate. —SlamDiego 23:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because

libel is a legal term. Don't use it. Simple, really. Guy (Help!) 10:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Citing an article on the laws concerning libel as proof that it is a peculiarly legal term is as fallacious as citing one on the laws concerning blasphemy or speculation or distillation — each of which has been defined for purposes of law, and none of which is a peculiarly legal term. The Wikipedia article that you cite (as if it could trump a standard dictionary?!?) doesn't in fact make the claim that “libel” is a peculiarly legal term. What is simple here is how plainly wrong you are. Every one of the charges that you levelled against me dissolves on inspection. —SlamDiego 18:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remember what I said about being right or being liked? You're trying to have it both ways. If you tell people they are libeling you, you will be blocked, because that's how we do things. You might be right that we do things wrong, but you can either be right or liked. If you tell someone else they are libeling you, you will be gone, regardless of how badly you know you are right and it's not a legal threat. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not trying to have it both ways. If Wikipedia is going to adopt a policy of blocking people unless it likes them, then it will truly have dissolved into a social club rather than a scholarly endeavor. More to the point, I draw your attention to the fact that JzG has not been staking out the position that the word “libel” should not be used because many people are mistaken about the range of its meanings. He has insisted despite transparent disproof that I did something that I didn't do. I plainly didn't level any legal threats, use an peculiar legal terms, or refuse to repent of something that I'd actually done. —SlamDiego 19:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's among the people you think are mistaken, as are the vast majority of the 'pedia. They see someone calling their statements libelous to be a legal threat. Legal threats are banned. As such, you can't call people's statements libelous because they get all angry about it. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've cited two standard dictionaries. I quoted one to him, and provide a link to the online version of it and of the other. At that point, he might well have said “Alright, but the word should still be avoided.” Instead, he has persisted in levelling a charge that has been falsified. —SlamDiego 19:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right or liked? It is impossible to convince the community to accept the use of the word libel. Impossible - not gonna happen. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the issue. I do not propose to turn Wikipedia into a community of scholars. I propose that JzG not reaffirm a charge that he has been shown is false. —SlamDiego 19:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JzG is under a great deal of pressure right now. I'm asking you not to add to it by seeking useless reaffirmation of your correctness. If you continue asking for useless oneupmanship visavie JzG, you're gonna lose your only supporter here (me). Please accept that he cares about how right you are only slightly less than I do. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I haven't sought reaffirmation (useless or otherwise) of my correctness. I have sought for JzG to stop reaffirming a false charge against me.
• What sort of support calls for such acquiesence? I'm sorry, but as far as I can see, you are here out of some sort of concern for JzG, and the extent to which you have provided support for me has been incidental to your trying to keep him from doing things that he may later regret.
• My presumption is that, with so many editors, many of them are under a great deal of pressure. A disproportionate share of those who have been blocked were surely under a great deal of pressure. Most of them are strangers to you (as to me), and there's no practical way to sort-out who perhaps should be allowed a bit more leeway. JzG is a stranger to me; I know of nothing that leads me to believe that I or anyone else should be his whipping boy.

—SlamDiego 19:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate your contributions to the encyclopedia. Let's start with that. I'd like to keep you here. But I'd like to keep you here happy, and I see two ways of doing that, basically the answers to the question do you want to be right, or do you want to be liked?

If you are happy being right, than take heart - the british spelling of color is stupid and having it on the cardinal when there are like 12 cardinals in england total is fucking idiotic. You are right, and most of the people here know that. British spelling = stupid on the internet for not british topics.

If you would like to be liked, however, you'll have to just buck up and go with our stupid rule, which says that whatever spelling was in the article before is the spelling we use. People who don't go with our stupid rule, while they are right, are not liked. If you'd like some other stupid rules? I've got a whole shitton of them - some of which I'm trying to change

Second, I'm not sure whether I correctly interpret your position on “colour” in general. Personally, I have nothing particularly against it. More generally, both with this account and editing anonymously, I have corrected spelling to make it British where the rules as I understand them say that it should be British. (The example that I recently furnished was my changing “edema” to “oedema” in the article on licorice exactly because that article is entitled “Liquorice”.) —SlamDiego 23:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh! Nice distinction :-) I get niggly about aluminum myself (IUPAC says aluminium) but I've learned to live with sulfur (because IUPAC says sulfur). Whatever, dude. But it's not actually worth fighting about, which was the point, really. Guy (Help!) 10:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]