User talk:Ministry of random walks
- For talk, add a message at the bottom below. This top section I use as a sandbox.
sandbox area sandbox area sandbox area sandbox area sandbox area sandbox area sandbox area sandbox area sandbox area sandbox area sandbox area sandbox area sandbox area sandbox area sandbox area sandbox area sandbox area sandbox area sandbox area sandbox area sandbox area sandbox area sandbox area sandbox area sandbox area sandbox area sandbox area sandbox area
Talk[edit]
Marginalism[edit]
Under imperfect seller competition, there is no well-defined supply curve. Under imperfect buyer competition (eg, monoposony) there is no well-defined demand curve. Hence, it is necessary to hedge any claim about marginalism or neoclassical economics using these curves to explain prices. —SlamDiego←T 04:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification. Ministry of random walks 12:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Taxation[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you have edited several tax related articles. If this is a topic of interest for you, perhaps you'll consider joining WikiProject Taxation, which works to improve tax related articles. Happy editing! Morphh (talk) 16:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'll check it out soon. Ministry of random walks 03:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Prechter biography[edit]
Thanks for the notice on my talk page. I trust that you will please read the WP:BLP policy, especially as it pertains to overly critical citations. You'll see on the Prechter talk page that I've been looking for opportunities to reach consensus with editors working in good faith, and I hope you'll be among them. Thanks.--Rgfolsom 22:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I don't think this is what BLP covers. The policy says (here):
Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). If the material is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply. Content may be re-inserted when it conforms to this policy.
- To be exempt from the 3RR rule, it must be "derogatory" and unsourced. This is neither. It is not derogatory, in that it is not meant to insult the subject, but to report his record along with others. And it is not unsourced. Therefore 3RR applies and you broke it. Ministry of random walks 23:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- The most important lesson I took away from my arbitration case is how seriously the Committee takes BLP policy -- all of their decisions have taken the conservative side of the issue. I read up on the issue at the time, and I've followed it since. Spend some time reading the evidence & workshop pages of the more recent arb case involving Badlydrawnjeff, who I think was a great editor. Conservative BLP policy reflects the community's consensus. And in this instance, the equally relevant point is that I have the very issue of Hulbert's newsletter that THF cited. He doesn't even source the pages properly; the figures he quotes are from Hulbert, yet it's obvious that THF uses those figures selectively. I'll fax you a copy of the relevant pages if you want to see for yourself.--Rgfolsom 18:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the update. If you think that THF's reference is wrong, you can fix it, so the quotation is fuller and more reflective of the report. The revert war that you're pursuing is getting you nowhere. Ministry of random walks 18:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Your suggestion to fix the quotation makes sense and I would do so immediately, were it not for what happened when I tried something similar with THF's use of the Malkiel quote. Please have a look at the Prechter talk page and give me your frank opinion: Was Malkiel being “facetious” when he gave “credit” to Prechter?--Rgfolsom 18:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- You utterly distorted the Malkiel quote. Malkiel was plainly critical of Prechter, noted that his "sell" signal was more than a little ambiguous and thus worthless, and your version made it seem Malkiel was neutral. So I do encourage MRW to compare the actual text of Malkiel to my account and to Rgfolsom's COI-polluted account. THF 22:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- I own a copy of Malkiel, as you may have guessed from my handle. Here, THF is in my opinion correct--Malkiel was being critical. On the question of the Hulbert newsletter, might I suggest that one or both of you share your scan with the rest of us by posting it somewhere? Ministry of random walks 18:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, I agree that most of what Malkiel said was critical. Yet my question was THF's characterization of Malkiel's comment: Do you think Malkiel was being "facetious" when he gave "credit" to Prechter?
- I own a copy of Malkiel, as you may have guessed from my handle. Here, THF is in my opinion correct--Malkiel was being critical. On the question of the Hulbert newsletter, might I suggest that one or both of you share your scan with the rest of us by posting it somewhere? Ministry of random walks 18:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- You utterly distorted the Malkiel quote. Malkiel was plainly critical of Prechter, noted that his "sell" signal was more than a little ambiguous and thus worthless, and your version made it seem Malkiel was neutral. So I do encourage MRW to compare the actual text of Malkiel to my account and to Rgfolsom's COI-polluted account. THF 22:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Your suggestion to fix the quotation makes sense and I would do so immediately, were it not for what happened when I tried something similar with THF's use of the Malkiel quote. Please have a look at the Prechter talk page and give me your frank opinion: Was Malkiel being “facetious” when he gave “credit” to Prechter?--Rgfolsom 18:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for the update. If you think that THF's reference is wrong, you can fix it, so the quotation is fuller and more reflective of the report. The revert war that you're pursuing is getting you nowhere. Ministry of random walks 18:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- The most important lesson I took away from my arbitration case is how seriously the Committee takes BLP policy -- all of their decisions have taken the conservative side of the issue. I read up on the issue at the time, and I've followed it since. Spend some time reading the evidence & workshop pages of the more recent arb case involving Badlydrawnjeff, who I think was a great editor. Conservative BLP policy reflects the community's consensus. And in this instance, the equally relevant point is that I have the very issue of Hulbert's newsletter that THF cited. He doesn't even source the pages properly; the figures he quotes are from Hulbert, yet it's obvious that THF uses those figures selectively. I'll fax you a copy of the relevant pages if you want to see for yourself.--Rgfolsom 18:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- I've scanned and uploaded the relevant page from Hulbert to a place where you can see it, and I can send the url by email to you. But I have claimed that THF selectively quoted from Hulbert, and THF claims he did not. It's his citation, so I will give THF the opportunity to be first in taking you up on your request. Thanks.--Rgfolsom 20:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
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) 17:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)