This is an old revision of this page, as edited by DepartedUser4 (talk | contribs) at 13:21, 23 September 2008 (→Thomas Muthee: I admit defeat). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 13:21, 23 September 2008 by DepartedUser4 (talk | contribs) (→Thomas Muthee: I admit defeat)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | This is my only account. Others who claim to be me are imposters. |
 |
Consensus statement about Austrian economics on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Economics
Hi there,
Sorry to hear about your health problems. Best of luck dude!
I came by because I thought you would like to know that we are trying to hammer out a consensus statement about Austrian economics on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Economics. If you drop into wikipedia, please drop by and leave your comments if you can.
thanks, lk (talk) 16:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hi! Thanks, I'm getting better. I've posted a comment on the talk page. It seems that the debate was mostly about principle 2 which is already oiff the table anyway. Jimbo is not by any stretch an authoritive source on what is questionable science or not and I don't think we should use that definition. There are far, far worse examples of that than Austrian economics. What we should do is keep the coverage in seperate articles and then avoid the undue coverage issue by relying on the sources to determine to what extent Austrian views should be included. EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
... this comment made me chuckle, though I think it may violate WP:BEANS... :) MastCell 16:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- He he thanks! When someone spends entire days editing just one talk page they either aren't as independent of the subject as they claim or they are using an alternate account. There's a difference between someone who simply cares about NPOV and someone campaigning on a talk page. It's hard to describe but when you've seen it enough times it becomes very obvious. More seriously, you guys are doing a great job keeping all this as NPOV as it can get. EconomicsGuy (talk) 04:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Stay off your talk page?
Do you want to discuss it at mine?--Cdogsimmons (talk) 03:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- No let's start over. I'm not trying to keep criticism out of the article. I'm trying to maintain a minimum of focus and fairness to the subject - just like every other BLP we have. I'm sick of seeing people getting away with things like Thomas Muthee which was obviously and beyond any doubt created in bad faith. I did not revert the whole thread and in particular not your reply to Kelly but I did revert what was nothing more than a forum comment. EconomicsGuy (talk) 03:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- I see. I saw a good faith comment supplying information to the discussion and you saw something else. I saw your reverts as a way of scrubbing the page of controversial info. I've altered the format to invite open discussion of the subject more easily.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Thomas Muthee
I've been working on it quite a bit and would appreciate it if you'd take another look. :) Regards. FangedFaerie (Talk | Edits) 03:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you for dropping by. I admit defeat per my remarks on the AfD and basically the massive opposition to my understanding of what passes WP:BLP. EconomicsGuy (talk) 13:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)