User talk:SlamDiego

Orc Hives
Some messages may be found
· in the first orc hive,
· in the second orc hive,
· in the third orc hive,
· in the fourth orc hive,
· in the fifth orc hive,
· in the sixth orc hive,
· in the seventh orc hive,
· in the eighth orc hive,
· in the ninth orc hive,
· in the tenth orc hive,
· in the eleventh orc hive,
· in the twelfth orc hive,
· in the unlucky orc hive,
· in the fourteenth orc hive,
· in the fifteenth orc hive,
· in the sixteenth orc hive,
· in the seventeenth orc hive, or
· in the eighteenth orc hive.

wow, you would. i even said "no offense", but you obviously took one. i mean no harm, i would just love to be able to voice my own opinion on my own page. with all due respect, i don't believe it's any of your business. i am not attacking you personally. thank you for your valuable time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Triberocker (talk • contribs) 03:24, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA does not make an exception for personal attacks prefaced with “no offense”, personal attacks on one's own user page, or a combination of the two. —SlamDiego_←T 03:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping roll back to the vandalism on my user page. It is tremendously appreciated!! Kartano (talk) 00:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're of course quite welcome. —SlamDiego_←T 01:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello--I felt the need to call you on what appears to be a personality-driven approach to the discussion at Talk:Classical_liberalism. I'm spending little time on WP right now, and don't wish to get too much into personality-driven such myself, so I hope I can just leave it at that. I consider you a general ally in improving economics articles, as I do LK. Unless there's an unusually overriding cause (as there is in discussing actual guidelines), I know I'd rather see you two ignore each other than snipe. CRETOG8(t/c) 00:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cretog8, I strongly believe that you act in good faith, though I sometimes believe that you are significantly wrong about behind-the-articles dynamics. Lawrencekhoo repeatedly misrepresents policy, with a consistent bias in the nature of the misrepresentation. Having policy misrepresented without challenge in places such as the discussion at “Classical liberalism” creätes or reïnforces a context in which misapprehensions will later be brought to bear in discussions about things such as the guidelines of some WikiProject. —SlamDiego_←T 00:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having now read your latest response at Talk:Classical_liberalism, I am disappointed. You represent things as if I were silent until Lawrencekhoo expressed himself; in fact, I was involved in discussion in that section a bit more than five days before he expressed himself (as well as my having made a tangential point a day or two before his remark). And, in representing me as having said that his remark should be dismissed, you fairly compel me to explain more bluntly in what way I was actually saying that his remark should be treated. You're throwing gasoline on the fire that you presumably wanted out. —SlamDiego_←T 01:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm ... Do you think Santa is not already updating his naughty and nice list? (serious smile)

The slightest touch of wit would render it less an aspersion on the caster. Surely it can be improved, if not removed. Take as much time as you need. ;-) If lessons would be helpful, I can give you a free one. lol Proofreader77 (talk) 08:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be interesting to see some editor raise an objection that involved some insistence that his-or-her edits were demonstrably amongst the madness to which I referred. —SlamDiego_←T 09:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SlamDiego. You have new messages at DMCer's talk page.
Message added 21:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

DMCer™ 21:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you were involved in the JohnHarold sockpuppet case in 2008. He appears to be back under the name of JonathanHarold, though he's being rather more restrained at the moment. Regards, Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's remarkable that he would create a fifth account in this context. Anyway, thanks for giving me a heads-up, and we'll just hope that he'll edit appropriately. —SlamDiego_←T 19:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have several times asked you to provide proof of your accusation that I have bad mouthed people in article space, or to retract the accusation. Instead you have equivocated and posted long screeds to cloud the issue. I have just posted my opinion of your behavior. Since you will no doubt post on Wikiquette to complain about this, I have saved you the trouble and posted there to ask for the opinion of the community on this matter: [1]
LK (talk) 13:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As you perhaps already know, your complaint to WQA alerts was rejected as not filed in good faith. As you certainly already know, I repeatedly offered to provide the diff that you demanded, on condition that you promise to apology if indeed the diff were produced. You ignored that condition each time.

You declare

I have twice been the victim of his habit of casting unfounded aspersions

Of course, you have far more than twice made the claim that I've cast unfounded aspersions, you often present these claims insultingly, and when they don't stand-up under scrutiny, you don't apologize or even retract; you just let the matter die-away. The one time that I was indeed mistaken in attributing an edit to you, when you produced the diff that disproved what I said, I quickly apologized both in the forum where I made the mistaken attribution, and here on my talk page. Even then, you wanted me to confess to more, in spite of being told by another editor, friendly to you, that the rest of your charges were dubious.

I don't think that you should continue this pattern of inferring aspersion, venting insult, and then just walking away. So, here, I conditioned my delivery of the diff on your agreement to apologize if I presented it. If there was not way for me to find such a diff, then why didn't you agree?

In hindsight, a fair part of the problem in this case began with your attempt to insult me obliquely, as “badmouthing”. I wasn't insulted, because I know what it actually means. But, thinking it insulting, you were outraged to have it used in reference to your own severe criticism. Once outraged, you couldn't get yourself under control, even when you learned the actual meaning; it only made you angrier.

You need a Wikibreak. And, whether you take a break or not, you need to focus any edits henceforth on where you can do some constructive good. —SlamDiego_←T 20:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice, unfortunately, it seems in rather poor taste, given that the reason I need a wikibreak is because of your actions and the actions of USER:Skipsievert. The reason I respond here is that I notice that you again impute bad actions to me without cause. You state above that "you have far more than twice made the claim that I've cast unfounded aspersions". That clearly implies that I have done so on at least three or four occasions (how does one define 'far more', definitely more than one more, but how many?) before the current bruhaha. This is a false statement, produce the diffs if you can. This is exactly the behavior that I am complaining about, and the behavior that is giving me so much grief – implying misbehaviour on the part of people that you do not like without adequate cause. I don't know what culture you grew up in, but in the culture I was brought up in, this behaviour is unacceptable. LK (talk) 12:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You want a third occasion? [2] fourth? [3] I could find more.

It adds an interesting dimension that you do not retain memory of such actions. —SlamDiego_←T 17:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And a week after those diffs were promptly presented in reply to your demand for them, the response from you is… silence. You've not been away from Wikipedia; you're still continuing the aforementioned pattern: “you often present these claims insultingly, and when they don't stand-up under scrutiny, you don't apologize or even retract; you just let the matter die-away”. I suppose that if we trivialize the notion of culture to where single individuals have their own distinct culture, this could be said to be an expression of your culture. —SlamDiego_←T 00:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated The Big Blue Book of Bicycle Repair, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Big Blue Book of Bicycle Repair. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notification. I have explained my rôle in the creätion of the article at the AfD discussion, and contacted LP-mn, who provided the content that was cloned to the nominated article. —SlamDiego_←T 08:06, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Big Blue Book, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Blue Book. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh* I have commented to the nomination page. —SlamDiego_←T 06:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		Civility Award
		I give you this award for remaining civil at NPOV/N, despite our strong disagreement. Swarm(Talk) 06:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy to become uncivil in a dispute, but you maintained civility throughout the discussion. You're obviously a very reasonable person, and I appreciate that.

I won't be pursuing the argument anymore...I'm just going to let it go for various reasons. Anyway, thanks. Swarm^(Talk)

Let's not get into a silly edit war. I asked you multiple times to show where McCulloch addresses utility functions. You're more than welcome to oblige my request on the Austrian School talk page. Though, in case things go much further...

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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. BigK HeX (talk) 18:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your declaring that I am in an edit war might amuse you, but I don't think that it's going to fool or amuse the admins.

• The claim that I first removed was both bald and false. Your unwillingness to acknowledge the content of McCulloch's article doesn't negate that content, and McCulloch's article was peer-reviewed, whereäs Caplan's webpage was not.
• When you placed a less bald version in the article, you justified it with a bogus claim of OR. And Caplan's claim, as such, is already in the “Criticism” section of the article. If there is any grounds for leaving this claim in the article at all, there is no good reason to have it appear twice.

—SlamDiego_←T 19:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've proposed to move the reference of this incident from the Phi Kappa Psi page to a new bio about William Nottingham Beebe. I've begun to create such an article here: User:NYCRuss/Sandbox/William Nottingham Beebe. Discussion about this is here: Talk:Phi Kappa Psi#Discussion to Move William Beebe Rape to Separate Article. Regards, NYCRuss (talk) 19:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've posted an RfC about this topic. You've participated in discussions about this before, and you're dispassionate participation will be appreciated. NYCRuss ☎ 12:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on House of Dana requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. GregJackP (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Hello, I just received a news link that makes me believe that Phi Kappa Psi#San Diego State University can be removed. A section on the talk page has been created here: Talk:Phi Kappa Psi#Possible removal of San Diego State section. Please add your thoughts. NYCRuss ☎ 19:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, D. W. MacKenzie, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D. W. MacKenzie. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

neutral notification Collect (talk) 13:01, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

..i made a comment on Talk:St. Petersburg paradox you might be interested in.--Vanakaris (talk) 08:49, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SlamDiego! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot notifying you on behalf of the the unreferenced biographies team that 1 of the articles that you created is currently tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 222 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Frank Hahn - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 07:47, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Retreaded has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 13:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For "SlamDiego" Hi, You said (back in 2009... I don't get here often!) "Do not put meta-eommentary in articles, as you did to “Quantity theory of money‎”. Further, the commentary (wherever placed) is mistaken. Readers should be given correct equations, not extended assurances that each of the possible mistakes that could be made has not been made. The dimensions of the equation of exchange are fine, with no k needed to correct things. —SlamDiego←T 23:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)"

This was about the money equation M.V = P.Q I asked about the dimensions of each variable as I was concerned about the consistency of the equation. I speculated that in needed a dimensioned "k" in front of "P.Q". You said no, it doesn't, but did not elaborate. I'd be more than happy to agree with you but please tell me the dimensions M, V, P and Q (obviously, you did not agree with my attempts to do this.) As an engineer, I always use dimensional checks on equations I am evaluating as a primary check on validity, i.e. as a necessary but not sufficient condition to be correct. BTW, please email your answer to [email protected] as I may not be back here for a year or two! Cheers, Roger Analogdino (talk) 18:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not much interested in providing private, free tutoring. —SlamDiego_←T

As a contributor to this article, you may be interested to know it has been nominated for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Net legends. Robofish (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the word you were looking for is Ochlocracy. It's also sometimes known as WP:ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 00:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The word that I wanted was/is “mobocracy”, because it is transparent — no one has to reach for a dictionary to know what it means (though it may be found in various dictionaries). You might quite reasonably claim that “mobocracy” is a sort of bastard word, while “ochlocracy” sticks nicely to Greek; but the mobocracies here are bastard majorities. —SlamDiego_←T

You posted this message to me:

Do not vandalize articles as you did “Marginalism”, or you will be blocked from editting and your ISP (Qwest Communications Corporation in Phoenix) may be contacted.

I certainly did not make the edit in question, so please get the right person before threatening someone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.14.203 (talk) 03:14, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to think that you are the only one who has ever used your present IP number. My message alerted the person using that IP at that time to the consequences of continuing the sort of action in which he or she had engaged. If you would like to avoid such alerts altogether, one step that you should take is to create a named account, rather than using a changeable IP number, not subject to your control, as your identifier. —SlamDiego_←T

Hi SlamDiego! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 22:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article John Oster Manufacturing Company has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable company, fails WP:CORP and WP:GNG

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:58, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Improving any part of Wikipedia that I can improve or preventing degradation of any part whose degradation I can prevent lends general credibility to Wikipedia. Meanwhile, I cannot do much about the perversion of important other parts of it, which parts would be made to seem more respectable by my efforts in parts of the first sort. So I leave it all to knaves, to fools, and to the misguided.

Go ahead and trash the Oster article if it pleases you. —SlamDiego_←T 09:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SlamDiego. 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)[reply]

Oh, goody. —SlamDiego_←T 07:08, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SlamDiego. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Mickey's Twice upon a Christmas.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:37, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since I no longer edit Wikipedia articles, when someone who doesn't understand the legal concept of fair use unlinks a copyrighted image that I've loaded from a page at which it is used fairly, I'm not going to rectify the situation. —SlamDiego_←T 08:38, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Hypograph has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

As it stands now (i.e., since about 2013), this is a disambiguation page with a single entry.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Tea2min (talk) 08:10, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I no longer try to save Wikipedia. If I improve those things that I can improve, this helps give Wikipedia a reputation that, in turn, lends greater credibility to articles that I cannot save from fools or from knaves. —SlamDiego_←T 08:27, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]