User talk:SlamDiego/Archive 9

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Phi Kappa Psi . For the Mediation Committee, ^ [omg plz] This message delivered by contact the Mediation Committee directly .

I have agreed to mediate this dispute. Please take a look at the preliminary questions at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Phi Kappa Psi. Thanks, WjBscribe 02:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Please don't confuse a datum lacking a footnote with one that is necessarily unsourced. (Note now that most of the article on Willem Mengelberg remains unfootnoted.)
• Please use the {{fact}} tag, rather than summarily removing content that is-or-is-believed to be unsourced. The tag can provoke helpful edits from users who would otherwise not know that they can make a contribution, and it means that intermediate edits don't foul what should be a simple process.

—SlamDiego_←T 14:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes, but there's no sense in permitting more unreferenced data just because the rest of it is unsourced. anyway the point is moot, as i provided the necessary link myself. --emerson7 | Talk 16:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You provided a footnote from a source that was already provided at the end of the article (by me). Meanwhile, the rest of the article is unfootnoted, yet sourced. —SlamDiego_←T 11:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...same net effect. --emerson7 | Talk 11:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A rather silly net effect: A footnote for the pension datum, and only for the pension datum. —SlamDiego_←T 11:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the quantitative theory of money article, this user slamdiego insists on pretending that the cause for moving from the transaction form of the equation to one based on final expenditures is lack of data on other transactions. His austrian faith clearly bars him from having an honest position on the subject. And once It will be clear to me on what ground a complaint should be made to the administrators and how to do it, I will do so as such a behaviour is clearly despicable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Panache (talk • contribs) Panache

You are very mistaken in your belief that the Austrian School embraces the equation of exchange; it does not. Were I making a partisan presentation, I would have critiqued the equation of exchange very effectively. But such a critique would be out-of-place in the section in question. —SlamDiego_←T 20:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(For an exemplar of an Austrian School critique of the equation of exchange, see Mises' Human Action, 4ed, Chapter XVII. “Indirect Exchange”, §2 “Observations on Some Widespread Errors”. Some readers might find the critique in Rothbard's Man, Economy and State more accessible, but I don't have a copy at hand and do not remember just whereïn he presents his attack.) —SlamDiego_←T 03:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I first thought looking at some of his comments on the page that this user simply had a bad knowledge of economics in general and austrian economics in particular. The net is full of austrian whose only knowledge can be summed up as "markets are natural, governments are bad, socialists are criminals". Now that I know that this user knows the austrian critics on the equation of exchange, I can'f understand why he opposes my edits. This user defies all logic.

He-she, I have the feeling the used is a guy but who knows, still pretends that capital goods are excluded in the equation of exchange because the relevant data is not available. I have pointed several times that data on housing transactions are readily available and could have been included anytime in the transaction. It would have looked like this : M*V=Q*P+H*P' with H housing transactions and P' the price of houses. But those transactions on houses have not been included. Therefore if they have not it is not because of lack of available data. Austrians understand why they have not, it's because inflation is defined by a rise in consumption good prices and only final transactions on consumption goods are seen as a source for money demand. The exclusion of capital good transactions has been a theoritical choice and has had a sensible impact on the predictive power of the equation. Why that user refuses to acknowledge it, amazes me.

I can read from his page and his comment "someone that has been promoted an administrator" that he is this way : agressive, stubborn, with no hability to listen and try to find solutions to disagreements. I wish for his own sake and the one of others in here that he could change, if only a little bit. Gradually

The only good thing I ve learned from encountering him is that I must learn how to reverse edits and other wikipedian skills (mark ups) in order to be able to fight stupid edits and wage a full fledge edit war when needed.

On top of this I believe I have a dislike for people who need details (and mark up and commas) in order to be able to grasp the obvious. So I bet we were not made to be friends. Panache 12:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page isn't the place for you to come an vent your personal animosity towards me. As you have now twice done ([1] and [2]). —SlamDiego_←T 21:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on my Talk page. BW, Thomasmeeks 00:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, saw your message at User talk:Gracenotes - you're quite right I've been neglecting things shamefully. Its so easy to get distracted by some of the noisier disputes and forget a more quiet case - especially as there was some delay in getting everyone's comments at the start - my apologies. I'll try and get things moving again... WjBaway 01:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]