User talk:Skipsievert

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

• Be Bold!
• Don't let grumpy users scare you off.
• Meet other new users
• Learn from others
• Play nicely with others
• Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
• Tell us about you

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, 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.

We're so glad you're here! TheThingy ^Talk 19:31, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

---

READ THIS please.

WELCOME TO MY TALK PAGE. Here are some tips to help you communicate with me:

• Please continue any conversation on the page where it was started.

Thus, if I have left a message on your talk page please DO NOT post a reply here. I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.

• Add or respond to an existing conversation under the existing heading.

Thank you.

---

Peak Oil

A point in time is an event, but Peak Oil is a theoretical event. Thus it should occur at a theoretical point in time. If the universe came to an end, for instance, tomorrow, but something's scheduled in two days, it is a theoretical point in time (which, by the way, wouldn't exist). Peak oil therefore must be theory until there is no more oil on the planet (including unrecoverable oil, since technology might someday make it recoverable!) AT ALL. Since the event is theoretical, the point in time is theoretical, too.

Unless you have proof that all oil has been removed from the ground everywhere for all time (which, if you believe in a life formation of oil, is absolutely impossible as long as life exists), then you will never have conclusive evidence of peak oil. It is ALWAYS theoretical.J. M. (talk) 17:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Even when all oil is consumed, it should still be theory, since it is based off other assumptions. It can ONLY be theory, and thus it is a theoretical event. It is a theoretical point in time. It is only flawed factually if you believe "Theory = Fantasy" which anyone seriously in the science community knows is NOT true.J. M. (talk) 17:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Well you are certainly entitled to your opinion. However... if you have a glass of water... and the glass has a small hole in the bottom of it... you are going to eventually leak a certain amount of water out of the hole. In other words... we live in a closed system. Oil is a fossil fuel... as taken out of the ground currently. This leads inexorably to an event of a peak in oil. Hence... this is not a theory, it is an event that can be monitored and roughly guestimated as to when said event occurs. Science.... http://physics.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node6.html .. according to this the next most probable, if it has not already occurred, is Peak oil... as a thesis or fact. But again, you are entitled to your opinion. If you would, please put further commentary or disccusion on the discussion page of the article Peak oil. Thanks. skip sievert (talk) 17:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Nobody can drive a car very far on theoretical gasoline. Hitler lost World War II in part because he wasn't aware that his armies were rolling over undiscovered oil in Libya. Oil-addicted economies such as that of the United States cannot comfortably accommodate a rapid, unanticipated drop in oil supply. To the people living in the United States right now, it won't matter if the peaking and subsequent decline of oil production turns out to be merely a local peak due to massive oil discoveries 200 years from now, or due to higher oil production by some new species of sentient life on planet Earth a billion years from now. Consider the analogy with peak agricultural production. If world food production should drop by 10% per year for the next decade, and then rebound to even higher levels than today's production, that won't be much comfort for everyone who starved to death in the meantime. If an interruption in oil supply turns out to be merely temporary on a very long time scale, that is meaningless to everyone who lives on a human time scale. Which is to say, everyone. Another analogy is making the payments on a mortgage - you have to keep up with payments every month, or else the bank will foreclose. If your peak income is still decades in your future, that doesn't impress the bank today. Obviously you can never be 100% sure you have seen your highest annual income until you die. But if your current income is far below what it was a few years ago when you planned your budget, you probably have a problem. --Teratornis (talk) 08:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can not argue with your logic much. Your rundown was kind of funny to read... (comic). Thanks. No doubt we are in for some heady times as the economy collapses... and the resource base crashes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2mKZcCVIPI&feature=channel_page

Wage Slavery

Thanks for your input on the Wage Slavery article. I wonder if you had a chance to look through the whole article before removing the POV tag? I agree that the lead is ok, and there is a criticism section at the end, but have you read the arguments made in the middle sections? Especially the captions for the illustrations and photos? The standard mainstream view of labor is that it is a voluntary sale of one's own time and efforts. This viewpoint is notably absent from the page except at the criticism section at the end. I would appreciate it if you would reconsider your opinion on this. Thanks LK (talk) 11:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

As long as the standard view is expressed... and the heterodox view also is expressed that would make the content neutral or trying to be. Because of the subject (title), it is by nature going to be a controversial article, right now especially with the economy creaking back and forth, and the standard view subject to possible emergence to who knows what. It is a lot like the early 30's right now as to possible dramatic change. I will look closer at the middle section. It could be the fate of that article though, it may have pretty strident heterodox views just because of the context and current situation of the economic system.

Technology has eliminated 'jobs', and while it may create a few... it probably is not going to be enough to give consumers purchasing power, although there are stop-gap ways around that. Energy conversion and mechanization has taken over the role of labor. Machine kilowatts will do the labor of man-hours... for few cents. Hence we seem to be in an epoch changing emergent time... or could be. Although the days of Adam Smith are long gone as far as scarcity ideas and labor theory of value, still... it appears we are on a collision course of technology either destroying the idea of a price system or some such huge possible chaotic change. Capitalism and Communism or Socialism etc. may all be ash canned to history. Thanks... and I will read the article more closely in the middle section. Captions, I will scrutinize. skip sievert (talk) 14:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to say thanks for your work at Wage Slavery. It's going to lead to edit warring, but that was pretty much inevitable. I'll lend my support to your efforts to trim back the cruft and POV. Hopefully, the article can all come out of this for the better. LK (talk) 10:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Energy Economics

Skip, please note that Abd has set up a discussion page to resolve the problems on energy economics etc.Richard Tol (talk) 16:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Sustainability cat

Saw you undid Alan. We're discussing the scope of the cat at Category_talk:Sustainability#Scope_of_this_category. Please join the conversation. NJGW (talk) 22:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks... checked it out. skip sievert (talk) 01:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Peak water

Could you please read through the Peak water article. I had it reviewed for GA and it was failed for what seems to me like a handful of arbitrary reasons. I would appreciate any improvements you might add. I am having it reviewed again with a group, rather than a single individual.Kgrr (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I will check it out. Thanks, this issue of peak water is currently a burning one, that is about to become a lot more in the spotlight. skip sievert (talk) 17:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Neo-Capitalism

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

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

February 2009

Please remember to mark your edits as minor if (and only if) they genuinely are minor edits (see Help:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.' Thank you. (just a friendly note..you may have it accidentally setup in your Preferences) (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 18:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

... please also don't close WQA incidents that you open yourself. You may state (as you did) that it appears resolved, but please others mark them as resolved, and mark them for archiving. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 18:31, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Double thanks. I read the (see Help:Minor edit) and this information will change my approach. Very good to review that. skip sievert (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Anon

That anon is Freddy Hutter.[1] He used a named account to create Underlying Decline Rate Observed. NJGW (talk) 15:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It was hard to make a lot of sense out of those edits. skip sievert (talk) 15:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Energy accounting

Skip, I noticed the RfC. You went over the edge a little, there, making inappropriate accusations or demands, and not, apparently, recognizing and taking opportunities to cooperate. A word to the wise. If you need help, ask. --Abd (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes... your right... and I appreciate the input. I have a difficult time asking for help... and have gotten the ire of a group up toward me that do not appreciate my pov. too much. I will try to be more pro-active. I am getting baited on a couple of things... I am going to try to stay with-in guidelines which is usually safe. Take a good look at the Sustainability article if you have time... and also this one Sustainable gardens, landscapes and sites. There is a sphere of people connected that seem pretty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civil_POV_pushing to me. I do believe their tight editing circle has reduced a good B article to a not so good non-neutral article... and outside opinions seem to confirm that, but no one else has become involved in the issues there (Sustainability article). Just today I asked for others opinions regarding this here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Environment - I will try to keep cool. One of the teams friends has been following me around in a negative way recently, negative editing ... Thanks Abd. skip sievert (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Remember, while some may not appreciate it, your POV is valuable. POV motivates people. The problem only arises when POVs conflict, or, alternatively, someone with a strong POV has their way with an article for a time because nobody is watching. Then, respect for civility and cooperation and community consensus (both local and large-scale) become very important. Your POV is valuable, but so is theirs. If you can work it out, the result will be very likely to be true NPOV.

But if not, if the "other side" is intransigent, then do not edit war, do not become uncivil, be patient. This is where you need to get help, ask for the involvement of neutral editors. Start with one! You can ask for someone who generally agrees with you, but it may be more efficient if you find someone likely to be neutral, not attached to some POV or other. Sometimes such a person will make a snap judgment, not having enough time to do the research.

You may recall, with your prior dispute, I didn't do that. In fact, I basically stayed out of it, simply facilitating the conversation between the two of you. Whatever the two of you would agree on, I was fine with. And that would stand until someone else shows up who wasn't a part of that consensus. Fine. Welcome the person. Educate them. Bring your former "opponent" back, who may be better able to understand their POV and help them become a part of a newer consensus. Build your local community, i.e., those interested in a particular set of articles. If you don't become closed, if you continually welcome new editors and try to integrate them, if possible, you will end up with articles that will grow in an orderly fashion, continually improving, instead of sloshing back and forth with continual battles. The community will protect the articles and itself.

This is my approach to conflict, which I follow in my own interactions and disputes to the extent I can manage. I'm also human, I can lose my patience, etc., but this is the background to which I return. And it works. Sometimes I've faced what seemed like insurmountable odds, where the larger community had signed on to what I could see was an error. Start with one other editor; in a case I have in mind, it was an administrator who had warned a user about the user being topic-banned. But the topic ban discussion had never been closed. The result was considered obvious until one looked carefully at the arguments: there were major defects that had, in fact, been noticed, and some editors had asked about them. No answer. Those users didn't return to make comments rejecting the ban because the basis was insufficient. Other users were not so careful and simply supported the ban based on the bad evidence they had been fed.

When someone complained that the editor was violating the ban, an admin took it upon himself to warn the user. When she complained about how unfair it was, he said, "Don't blame me, I'm just the messenger." Now, in my opinion, this represented a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. Discussions have a close, the closer takes responsibility for the decision, having reviewed the arguments. Numbers are not supposed to count. When someone closes a discussion with a decision, that person is then responsible for implementing the decision, which, with a ban, would include informing the editor, and would also include taking responsibility for lifting the ban if new evidence or arguments showed it was no longer necessary or even that it was based on an error. There is then procedure for appealing such a decision. But, in fact, the decision had never been made, and the discussion was archived.

Now, the admin was having personal difficulties at the time, and I think that being presented with a bulldog like myself was more than he could handle, and some of the actions he took complicated things, and they got even more complicated when a banned editor popped in with IP edits that made it look like the admin I was dealing with might be a sock puppet (and that banned editor has long claimed that he has undiscovered and reputable accounts). In a huge misunderstanding, I ended up being blocked. But, notice, the community was involved now. An editor whom I had helped took up the cause of this young banned editor, and developed evidence that showed she was generally innocent of anything worthy of a ban. The original accuser disappeared. The young editor was unbanned.

I decided to test the waters, to see what would happen if I didn't put up an unblock template, though I did explain why the block wasn't properly founded, in a pretty neutral way. I learned that the community will generally not intervene to unblock an editor unless the editor follows due process, which includes putting up an unblock template. So, eventually, I did it, the unblock was promptly denied, I did nothing, and then another admin popped in to unblock me. Now, consider what would have happened if I had railed against those who warned and blocked me! Good chance, I'd still be blocked. I did act to clear up some of the misunderstandings, but in a minimally disruptive way, starting with a self-RfC in my own user space. There was an attempt to get me blocked over that, but the result was that the one trying to get that going was recognized and blocked as a disruptive editor. Having developed some local consensus and support, I then approached the admin who had originally warned me. The admin at first didn't want to revisit it. So I asked that admin to suggest a mediator. This, Skip, is standard dispute resolution, which is not used often enough. The admin gave a name, of an admin who was recently elected to ArbComm, this was before that. I knew that this admin was one of the best, so we asked this admin to look at the dispute. He said, "Can't you guys work it out?" So we did. End of dispute. He acknowledged that the warning, in hindsight, was extreme. I didn't insist on any bad faith or serious neglect. And we now work together. I did not move on to question the block itself, because by this time it was pretty old, though it is still possible there would be some value in it. That has to be the question: what is the value to the project of rehashing this old stuff (last August)? Not, "Was I wrongly accused?" So what if I was wrongly accused! It is moot now.

The admin whom I had originally challenged over the ban, when I started doing Recent Changes patrol, noticed it and offered me the rollback privilege, and we frequently cooperate now. He said, later, that it had all been a misunderstanding, and noted the personal problems he'd been having at the time, that made him less "competent" to deal with the dispute. In the end, win-win.

So, Skip, take every opportunity to build your relationship with other editors. Help them whenever possible. Consider their POV and attempt to accommodate it, though you should not go so far as to allow policy violations or clear guideline violations, or to allow, without protest, removal of important and reliably sourced text. Usually it can be done with proper "framing" and a balance of sources. And if someone is truly intransigent, well, weren't you? Don't take it personally. And get help.

Thanks for your response, let me know if you need specific assistance. --Abd (talk) 15:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Very good overview and commentary. I think I made most of my worse mistakes when I first started... but a good reminder, to take the high road, and I do need that reminded as my patience zone fluctuates. I have made some interesting editing companions on the way. On the surface no commonality at all... but under the surface... a desire to make information known in a plain, but hopefully creative way... and neutral way. The gist as you say... take the high road... and walk away from won or lost debates having learned something, with luck. I will try to think in terms of invitation of inspection to more people, for exactly what you are saying... more input and with luck more well rounded presentation, as to pov. skip sievert (talk) 15:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Technocracy Study Course and Hubbert peak theory

Skip, Boy, I wish that Wikipedia allowed original research. This is really a good find. There seems to be prior art for Hubbert peak theory! One can see peak predictions being made on fig 1 and fig 2. Note how they show peak pig iron in fig 1 and are hinting at peak total energy in fig 2. Fig 3 - peak (steam?) railroad. The "inflection point" is where the peak growth rate occurs. The Hubbert curve is simply a first derivative of the s curve they are referring to. Take a close look at fig. 5. compare this to fig.1 of M. King Hubbert, [Nuclear Energy and the Fossil Fuels] (1956). On original page 102 (or p116 of the pdf) of Study Course, note how he says this applies "in the case of mineral fuel, such af; coal and oil, it is the energy content that is of importance in use. This energy is degraded in accordance with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Thus, coal and oil can be used only once." Then take a close look at page 109 (or 123 of the pdf) = beginning of peak oil predictions. This is really a good read so far! Konrad,  kgrr ^talk 08:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Glad your having fun with it. Pretty astounding how Hubbert figured out so much and the people around him also. Maybe some of the info could be used for new notable aspects of 'Energy economics in history' maybe, potential article. If you start something like that, I would help also. There sure would be a lot of great sources to draw from. skip sievert (talk) 17:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I think I will take on Technocracy Study Course first, but I have to burn some midnight oil to finish reading it. The writing style is very consistently Hubbert by the way.  kgrr ^talk 06:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

BTW, there are two copies of my book in the Library of Congress.  kgrr ^talk 06:24, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hot stain

I'm getting tired of being in the middle of a tag team with Grundle2600 and Gigs while working on my peak articles.  kgrr ^talk 06:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I hear you. For what ever reason people have a tendency to team up sometimes to bad effect. It can reinforce mono p.o.v. -. I am having problems also with an article Sustainability because of issues brought up. skip sievert (talk) 17:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

In the end there is little difference between one editor or two, except that two can do more good work, and be a little more frustrating to deal with when the work isn't good. Sometimes the more reasonable of the two can help to corral the other. When there is only one editor, we can be tempted to reject them out of hand. Bad idea. One editor may represent thousands of possible editors; we need to seek consensus in any case. Patient exploration of issues, making reasonable compromises, making sure that minority points of view are represented without being unduly weighted, will resolve most disputes. For those that are left, there is further process. Sometimes an administrator will intervene and block a tendentious editor or set of editors, but frequently that doesn't actually resolve the issue unless the problem really is that particular editor and not an unrepresented but notable point of view, with support in at least one reliable source.

Be especially generous on Talk pages, offer to help, see if you can find sources supporting points of view that you disagree with! The holy grail here is consensus. Finding NPOV when people are divided is like trying to find the right time of day with a stopped clock. Sometimes it's right. When editors with diverse points of view can agree on text, it is almost certainly NPOV. NPOV is a process, not a position. It isn't a "point of view" when reduced to specific content. Keep up your efforts, congratulations on working on your own attitude and developing cooperative relationships. --Abd (talk) 12:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Can we calm down a bit on Sustainability article?

I am calmed down (after staying out of the discussion for a few months), but unfortunately, it seems like you who needs to chill and realize that not everyone in the world agrees with your views. Just because you saw a comment which you don't like, i.e.[2], that does not automatically constitutes "personal attack". OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you are way to personally involved in the team on the page... and also as a personal editing partner with members of the team (Sunray in particular) to make the statement you made which I found personally insulting, demeaning and not appropriate. I have done a lot of grunt work on that article. My talk page also requests that conversations started elsewhere be done where started. I feel that you are baiting me with the last communication here. Please stop. Please take such disputes if you feel they are disputes to requests for comment, requests for mediation, or requests for arbitration. I brought up issues on the page because a member of the team there referenced their book without telling any one they were the author. skip sievert (talk) 21:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Information question

Hey skip, I do have some Technical problems on how to add Sections in discussion pages. Am I allowed to do so? I have some arguments to pose on the Sustainability article. AdenR (talk) 23:20, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes you are allowed to do that. The talk pages are for discussions of the article... and directly involved info. I see you are a new user and I have put a message on your user page with some links that you may find helpful. You will find that most anyone will give you info or steer you toward it as to guidelines and general practices. I am going to add the section things here to separate this message from the one above it... that is repeating this twice = with words between. You will get the hang of it. See above I put Information question between the two ='s... Sections in articles are done the same way. Examine the pages after you push the 'edit' button and you will mostly learn things by seeing what others are doing. Also... for articles that you are interested in following or contributing to... you could think about clicking the page tab watch... then you will see what has been going on when you click on the page my watch list, and check the history tab of the article. Welcome to Wikipedia. skip sievert (talk) 01:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Video

That's really cool. I can see it at M. King Hubbert, but otherwise it's a little outdated (he's showing his original prediction of a peak in 1995) and not as clearly explained as some other sources are (I had a hard time telling what all he was mumbling at times). But definitely cool watching Hubbert himself talk on the subject. Thanks for the link. NJGW (talk) 22:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Your the go to guy with sourcing and links on related articles, I have seen from experience. I will put it on the Hubbert art. page. skip sievert (talk) 01:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Welcoming users

I noticed you welcome Tainted Conformity on the user's talk page. I like to do that myself. It looks like you were copying the text from your talk page, but there's an easier way to welcome new users. There a lot of welcome templates, such as Template:WelcomeShout that have been created, and you can use the instructions on the template's pages to quickly use that welcome template. For more information, as well as a lot of other welcome templates, you can go to Wikipedia:Welcoming committee. Thanks! --Mysdaao ^talk 03:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. which I did not know, and that information is appreciated. skip sievert (talk) 03:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Request for tagging WP:Energy categories

Hi, Skip. As a participant of the WP:Energy, I would like to ask you to comment the request for tagging WP:Energy articles by bot. The list of potential categories for tagging is located here and the discussion about which categories should be excluded from this list, is going on at the WP:Energy talkpage here. Your comments are welcome. Beagel (talk) 12:24, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

History of economic thought

Thanks for your invitations on the above. I'm trying to formulate a way of proceeding on HOET that looks beyond reoent Edits and takes account of different concerns, some of them long-standing. This will take probably a couple days or more. Nothing is on or off the table. My thought is that it is better to do things right than instantly. I hope that you will be patient. We all have the same end of improving the article. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good Thomas M. You have made some nice sourcing changes. skip sievert (talk) 03:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Austrian economics

Sorry about that. I was trying to revert KiK's latest sock. You edit just got caught in the cross fire. LK (talk) 16:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh.. not a problem. Always nice to keep a dialogue going though. skip sievert (talk) 16:31, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for cleaning up my mess-I tried a partial revert, but obviously messed it up. CRETOG8(t/c) 18:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure thing. : skip sievert (talk) 20:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Long term abuse

Mr3003nights had added you [3] to Wikipedia:Long term abuse. I removed his entry but you might want to keep an eye on his contributions if he attempts something similar in the future. -- Vision Thing -- 09:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Much appreciated. Thank you Vision Thing.

coi

Hi, this is an interesting twist on that talk page, and I will probably end up thanking you for raising the issue. However, I have contradicted one view you placed; the guidelines are a useful shortcut to settling disputes resulting from coi, in 90%+ of incidents, but I am not convinced its inclusion would be illegitimate in this article. If I said I knew what was going on, I would really be guessing, so please don't interpret my view as another personally directed insult. Cheers for your concern regarding the integrity of our site :-) cygnis insignis 05:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, and without getting too much into old baggage, I do appreciate you forthrightness and communication. skip sievert (talk) 18:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Liberal economist

Skip, I'm rather confused by the whole debate going on at Krugman. It seems that the (plausibly contentious) issues of whether he's a liberal, an economist, a Keynesian, etc. are fairly settled: no one is saying, for example, that he's not a (modern) liberal. So why the heated argument over the order of the terms? I understand rd232's side -- policy and grammar -- but I wasn't able to follow yours. What I was able to pick up is that you think that the policy is malleable (true!) and the grammar is unambiguous thanks to the links (which I don't agree with, but for good enough reason we can put grammar aside).

So rather than potentially put you 'on the spot' on the main discussion I thought I'd drop you a line here so you could explain your point better.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:17, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems more like a series of angry exchanges to me than a debate. A comma would probably settle it. I don't much like the article in general because of the contentious way it is being edited, or the talk page, and to my mind it seems a tug of war fan site of pro and anti Krugman. I probably should swear off it in general as I hate getting involved in content disputes when they seem more pov oriented than content. Too me Krugman seems like a non entity in general and not even an interesting or currently viable player also. I am not on either side of him though. Something like whether he is a Keynesian or not seems pathetically a non issue... and I have no idea why an editor wants to use that title of keynesian in the lead. The frozen article that now says liberal economist seems fine to me... and passes any test of Duck test as you say.

The Keynesian thing just seems like a pointless excessive descriptor to me because for one thing it probably is an antique term, and seems confusing as a way to describe much of anything in this economy. It seems to me like the talk page needs major de-charging of emotion, which maybe I am failing at, though I had that in mind. I added a little thing a while back in the Nobel section that stuck... and as that is stable I probably should make tracks away from the article. I can not help but think that simple language issues are not that complicated. skip sievert (talk) 20:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

For contrast, I think it's extremely important to note that he's a Keynesian: this sums up a great many of his beliefs about the place of economics in a single word.

It's also fairly hard to dismiss him as a non-entity when he has both an extremely large daily audience and a Nobel prize. I don't generally like his policies, personally, but I try not to let that sway me while working or talking about the entry.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 23:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Point taken. As someone more interested in energy economics and not neo classical synthesis concepts... I find him mostly irrelevant, and the Noble prize thing mostly a reward for bad behavior as to thinking. The refusal to abandon the myth of the market as a self-regulating system is not the result of a conspiracy on the part of the “establishment” in economics. It is not even a choice that any individual economist is necessarily aware of making. Rather it is the way economics operates as a social system—including the way new members of the establishment are selected—retaining its place within the larger society by perpetuating a set of ideas which have been found useful by that society, however dysfunctional the same set of ideas may be from a scientific understanding of how the economic system works. In other words, economics is unwilling to adhere to the epistemological principles which distinguish scientific from other types of intellectual activity because this might jeopardize the position of economists within the larger society as the defender of the dominant faith. This situation in which economists find themselves is therefore not unlike that of many natural scientists who, when faced with mounting evidence in support of first, the Copernican theory of the universe and then, later, the Darwinian theory of evolution, had to decide whether undermining the revelatory basis of Judeo-Christian ethics was not too great a price to pay for being able to reveal the truth.

Disclosing the “revelatory basis” of neoclassical economic theory is not terribly difficult. Here is a link to check out Greathouse... and thanks for the exchange of ideas. Also... I do try to stay absolutely npov and factual when editing... but maybe cut loose a little on talk pages [4] I honestly see Krugman as a kind of throwback to the 18th. century... which throws back to the 25th. century BCE and the invention of civil contract society [5] which is about to be lost because of technology and energy conversion destroying the market and so called jobs, hence so called purchasing power and value. The market concepts of Keynes have no real function these days except for social control, and mostly now they fail at that also now as technology destroys the price system with scarcity being eliminated by technology. Regards. skip sievert (talk) 23:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Wage slavery

Skip, please check out Wage slavery where I have removed a sentence. I'd like to see it restored, but I have verifiability concerns: please see the article's Talk page.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 01:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Checked it out and commented. skip sievert (talk) 17:25, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

There's a bug that causes the garbage you saw on your recent edit to the talk page. If I remember right, it's browser specific, and I think it's related to the spell-checker. Not the first time I've seen it! Ravensfire2002 (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah interesting. I just downloaded the newest version of firefox a few days ago, and I do have the spell checker from google toolbar add on. Kind of surprised me to say the least, when it scrambled things. I hope it is ironed out or updated out soon. I have only noticed the problem on Wikipedia so far. Thanks for the info Ravenfire2002. I have had some other problems with slow mail opening also which maybe is a browser thing as well. - skip sievert (talk) 21:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Neo-Schumpeterian economics

Is this school of thought of any note or interest? Is it worth a WP entry? Granitethighs (talk) 02:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

No doubt it would be and I am surprised a little there is no article of it with that title. Here is as close as it gets with a Wikipedia search I think [6], but that does not cover the exact subject as a specific article. It looks like that article would be a breeze to put together given the huge amount of info in a google search [7]. I personally do not find any of that economic school interesting or viable, but for the encyclopedia... no doubt it would be a good addition. If you want any help constructing it I could help for that reason. The Libertarians and Austrian economics people like this guy. Looks like a very simple article to put together also. skip sievert (talk) 03:03, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Wage Slavery

• sigh* I don't mind Mr3003 being back, but I just wish he'd be a bit calmer. He (assumed he, of course!) is right in that he's put a lot of work into the article, but between his aggressive style and the WP:OWN he has at times, it makes it tough to really want to read through his changes. I just reverted a section he added (as his IP) on the talk page as a borderline attack, plus left a message on his talk page(s). Hopefully that will nudge him the right way. I think maybe if we stay cool on our posts, and focus more on the content, he'll either figure it out, or end up on another break for hostility.

I don't think he's socking - I don't see the Mr3003nights and the 99 IP address both posting at the same time and supporting each other. If he's just using one or the other, and not hiding, that's not a sock, just someone forgetting to login! If he uses it to try and evade a block, it's another story, of course, but with autoblock, it's unlikely. Ravensfire2002 (talk) 14:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

For a really long period of time that article was pretty much a pov, o.r. maze of elaborate confounding ideas written essay/blog like in style, and I have been trying to go through it, slowly and strip most of that out.

In his edit summaries in the past he uses the term other editors a lot, and there are mostly none except his other edits that back his position. Hard to say what is going to happen with that situation but so far he shows no willingness to edit constructively and yes seems in 24/7 attack mode. Thanks, skip sievert (talk) 14:42, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey - just a quick comment. I think you did get a bit hasty on the last series of comments on the article. I wouldn't have described the section heading as something too bad, but as one way to describe something that was happening. The earlier one where he was calling you out specifically was over the line, this is more of a slight nudging.

Yeah, he's not the easiest editor to deal with, but as you want him to AGF towards you, you need to do the same towards him. Even when he was blocked, he did not edit with the IP. I also haven't found any cases of both the editor and the IP supporting each other - it's pretty transparent to anyone who looks at it. Call it just a case of someone that really doesn't bother signing in all the time. He's gotten better of late, so maybe supporting that, and gentle reminders for any back-slides will continue the improvement. To quote from Rufus "Be excellent to each other!" Ravensfire (talk) 18:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I pretty much agree. But, because of the past nonstop stuff made it clear to him not to use avatar names or focus on users especially in speculative conflict in the headings [8] which is against guidelines and probably sensibly. I did make a positive comment toward him. As you said he has improved, at least the last couple of edits so that is good. skip sievert (talk) 19:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

new topic

Hello--Would you mind if I moved (or you could move) this post to its own top-level topic heading? I think that might help discuss it without immediately drawing in rancor from the earlier discussion. CRETOG8(t/c) 21:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Thats probably a good idea, and I had the same thought it would be better as a separate entity. Go ahead Cretog8. Thanks. skip sievert (talk) 21:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

RfC at WT:ECON

I've reformulated the proposed guidelines based on your and other's comments. I would appreciate it if you could have a look and further comment there. Thankyou, --LK (talk) 15:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks

As I have mentioned to you before during our talk page interactions, please do not attack other editors, as you did here[9] and here[10]. Comment exclusively on the edits, not other editors. Do not make negative inferences (directly or by implication) about their motives, morals, intelligence or good faith. Please note that if you continue attacking other editors, you will likely be blocked from editing Wikipedia. LK (talk) 10:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)