| Revision as of 23:52, 30 October 2006 editEdward Wakelin (talk | contribs)694 edits →Question about what you said about CoI on the Gary Weiss page← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 15:58, 14 January 2025 edit undoCharles Matthews (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators360,497 edits →Capital as Power: format | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| *] *] | |||
| |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | |||
| *], ], ], ], ] | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 125K | |||
| *], ], ], ], ] | |||
| |counter = 48 | |||
| *], ], ], ], ] | |||
| |algo = old(14d) | |||
| *] | |||
| |archive = User talk:Charles Matthews/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| }} | |||
| {{archives|auto=yes}} | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| == |
== CorruptionOfEconomics == | ||
| Thank you so much, Charles, for creating the article page. | |||
| Re: your comments at ]. The history of the Enion redirect only indicates one edit. Once ] created the article, he removed some links which ''should not have pointed to "his" page''. Making a disambiguation page would have been a better choice, but I see no reason to ] that he was motivated by anything other than good intentions. His misunderstanding of the purpose of Misplaced Pages may be vast, but I think he may be feeling ] right now. (Just a guess based on the fact that he seems to have given up and gone away.) ] <sub>]</sub> 19:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| If you are interested as a "lead author" there is a compiled version of the text here https://globalartscollective.org/corruption-of-economics.htm#top, or I cand lend you a copy of the second edition, 2022, from Shepheard-Walwyn Ltd. | |||
| :Removing red links is a bad thing. He may think he is more important to WP than a minor character in William Blake; but I believe we should make utterly clear that, from the encyclopedic point of view, that is not so. ] 20:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :PS. I just seen the latest version. You '''are''' obviously interested... | |||
| ] (]) 23:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I will be able to get a library copy of the book. ] (]) 05:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Hello Charles. Would it be enough for now to make Capitalism As Power into a stub class? ] (]) 19:37, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Seasons Greetings!== | |||
| == Two RfAr's filed by User:Nathannoblet == | |||
| <div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#FF4646; background-color:#00A86B; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:7px; border-radius:1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);;" class="plainlinks">]]{{-}} | |||
| Please note that this user filed ''two'' unexplained RfAr's simultaneously, not just one. You have voted to reject one by for consistency's sake ought to go back and do the same with the other. ] 20:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| {{white|{{big|'''''Hello there, 'tis the season again, believe it or not, the years pass so quickly now! A big thank you for all of your contributions to Misplaced Pages in 2024! Wishing you a Very Merry Christmas and here's to a happy and productive 2025! ♦ ] 08:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)'''''}}}} | |||
| </div> | |||
| {{-}} | |||
| ==Johann Hari page and sockpuppets== | |||
| == Precious anniversary == | |||
| {{User QAIbox/auto|years=Six}} | |||
| Best wishes for the season, and beyond! --] (]) 08:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Books & Bytes – Issue 66 == | |||
| I'm a little miffed by the appearance of about 3 new editors who are fairly obvious sockpuppets, not only by looking at their one issue (one page!) contribution histories but also by the text style. I won't bang on about it on the discussion page, but surely I don't have to be bound by false concensus?] 13:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <div lang="en" dir="ltr" class="mw-content-ltr"> | |||
| :You are alleging that these are sockpuppets. My approach has been, firstly, to make it clear that we can check this (CheckUser). If I do this and you are wrong, you are worse off than before. You could be wrong, with some like-thinking friends being summoned as 'meatpuppets'. Since using sockpuppets is not in itself actionable, I'd advise you just to see how it goes. I have also laid the groundwork for further blocks under the personal attack policy. I'm quite prepared to act on any misbehaviour; my main aim is to get the talk page discussion back into normal channels, not to prove that I have the power to apply bans. ] 14:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| <div style="font-size: 1.5em; margin: 0 100px;"> | |||
| ]</div> | |||
| <div style="line-height: 1.2;"> | |||
| <span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">'''The Misplaced Pages Library''': ''Books & Bytes''</span><br /> | |||
| Issue 66, November – December 2024 | |||
| </div> | |||
| <div style="margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: 1.2em;"> | |||
| * Les Jours and East View Press join the library | |||
| * Tech tip: Newspapers.com | |||
| <big>''']'''</big> | |||
| </div> | |||
| </div> | |||
| <small>Sent by ] on behalf of The Misplaced Pages Library team --17:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)</small> | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Samwalton9 (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=The_Wikipedia_Library/Newsletter/Recipients&oldid=28051347 --> | |||
| == Capital as Power == | |||
| == "Giano" arbitration and pending proposal == | |||
| :::: Hello again. Charles, there is a review of Capital as Power here https://capitalaspower.com/2022/01/owen-lynch-book-review-capital-as-power/ | |||
| The so-called Giano arbitration is about to close, but there is a pending motion by an arbitrator (to modify the proposed ban of User:John Reid) on which several of the arbitrators have not voted. My views and those of other editors can be found on the talk page. You may want to give this attention before the case is actually closed. ] 12:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::: | |||
| :Not the vote that I, or many other editors who have commented, would have supported, but thank you for the follow-up. ] 12:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::: ] (]) 23:00, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you for the alert. For myself, fast-tracking the closure of this case was a preferred way. Possibly the most significant case of this year, in terms of its impact. Don't want to say more, but do believe me when I say that there has been discussion of its aspects. ] 12:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::Oh, I am sure enough of that. My extensive comments on various aspects are on the Workshop and PD-talk pages so I won't repeat them here (though I don't know how many arbitrators read those pages). I was glad to give a heads-up, though I was fairly sure you'd be a vote against my position that this ban is a serious mistake and will undermine any other positive results the decision might have. ] 13:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Under ], that review is unlikely to be accepted as a reliable source. I have found a review by ] that will be useful. ] (]) 04:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::One can argue against fast-tracking cases on the grounds that decisions may be hasty, or just look hasty. Doesn't apply here. We could hardly not notice implications of this one. We can play ''how will this look?'' to a fair extent, but that is ultimately not the job. It seems inevitable that there will be Wikipedians who will misread it. There were about 50 sections to vote on, as I recall. I think it is important that people don't read the wrong things into how it has gone. There is precious little we can do about that: the whole tone of vehemence and exaggeration that accompanies certain styles of debate here militates against rational outcomes. Which is roughly where this case came in. For myself, I pay most attention to the internal AC debates, and least to lobbying and attempts to pressurise Arbitrators. I've been alert to what we are deciding, and I hope and believe we are making the most of an extremely unfortunate conjuncture of things. | |||
| ::::::Good! Thank you. ] (]) 10:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| What more should I do to make this: | |||
| ::By the way, you raised another matter with me, at around the time this was breaking news. I'd like to assure you that I did see that this got discussed, even if you may not have seen any outcome. ] 14:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Janosabel/sandbox#Capital_As_Power%E2%80%94A_Study_of_Order_and_Creorder | |||
| into a Stub class entry? | |||
| :At present it reads like an essay. ] says that "Articles and other encyclopedic content should be written in a formal tone". Below that, under ], it says "Articles should not be written from a first- or second-person perspective." So when you write "I", there is a problem. | |||
| Fast-tracking of ArbCom decisions is hardly a concern. In fact, as an outside observer who has now participated in the process (though not as a principal party) a couple of times, in my mind the biggest issue affecting ArbCom's functioning is the (understandable) delays in the proceedings. I still think the ban on John Reid is a bad mistake, and may raise it before Jimbo, but I understand if you feel constrained against commenting further. I've never sought to "pressurize arbitrators" with anything other than the force of my observations and arguments, for whatever they may be worth. As for the other matter, I was going to follow up on that as well, as it seemed to have dropped off the page out of sight, so it is good to know that was discussed as well, albeit in a less than fully transparent process. ] 16:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :What I saw in the review was a reference to the ]. This is helpful background. If ''Capital as Power'' builds on some positions taken in that controversy, there should be a way to explain the argument of the book more simply. ] (]) 15:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Yes, an appeal lies to Jimbo, as a last resort. It ought to come from the person in question, really. | |||
| As a separate general comment, enWP seems to grow monolithic and entrenched structures that are then hard to reform. It is not really clear to me how to cope with this. We (roughly speaking) find a structure that at least does what it claims to do, and then put up with the bumpiness of the out-turn (I'm thinking about AfD, RfA as well as the AC). The reason is not hard to see: it's run by volunteers, and getting the management consultants in is not an option. | |||
| ] 16:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Yes, an appeal lies to Jimbo, as a last resort. It ought to come from the person in question, really. ] 16:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :John Reid doesn't plan to do anything, per the discussion on the proposed decision talk and on his usertalk page. He's being philosophical about things and says he can use a week off anyway and will "scrupulously respect" his ban. I think others including myself are a good deal more unhappy about the ban than he is. There will be a feeling that an excellent contributor was punished "for speaking out" during a contentious time. Please note, which I have tried to emphasize throughout, that my strong opposition to a ban does not mean I appreciated the stridency of his comments or that I agreed with any or all of them. | |||
| :As for your meta-comment, if you were to put together a list of suggested changes I'd be glad to comment on them. <s>The lawyer (hopefully not wikilawyer) in me suggests that ''not banning'' the good-faith volunteers would be a place to start, but that wouldn't be a helpful observation at this point so I'll won't say it.</s> ] 16:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Well, the ''smart'' reaction to being treated unjustly here (as the victim perceives it) is to do exactly as you describe. What you say rather suggests he needs no advice in the matter. ] 16:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :The concern, of course, is that others could be deterred from contributing to policy discussion, and there arises a disquietude that a fellow contributor was treated unjustly. (Plus, of course, we lose a week of good edits.) Presumably your response and that of the other arbitrators who support the ban would be that the type of discussion he was engaged in ''should'' be deterred. I accept that's a judgment call. ] 16:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| I'm not going to comment, but I think it is clear enough that the 'job description' for an Arb includes things that are not purely judicial. ] 16:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ==Shorter statement== | |||
| Just for your information. I have now written a shorter statement concerning Lochdale's request for arbitration. See . ] 19:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Thank you. ] 21:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Charles de Gaulle (R 91) == | |||
| Regarding Charles de Gaulle (R 91) : Can you please have a look at this and advise what to do about what is happening on the discussion page ? Thanks a great deal. ] 04:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :You may be relying too closely on ]. While that page retains guideline status, it also carries a 'dispute' warning, and it has gained a reputation in some quarters as basically unhelpful. If you have a serious dispute over unreferenced material, there are ways to approach it; and here it is important to assume the good faith of others involved. ] 07:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: What are the other avenues that we can explore if we have an unresolved dispute ? My objective is not to have this article lockedup. I'd really like some independant third-party observers to view the situation and provide some comments to resolve this appropriately.] 14:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :Strange to say, in all these years we haven't come up with better ways to deal with disputes on ''content'' than the parties trying to hammer out a compromise version. That actually works. If it's not working, I would ask first whether there is some behavioural issue that is an obstruction to talk-talk as a way ahead. If there is, and you get an admin involved in looking over the page and how editors are acting, that usually calms things down. ] 14:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: Actually, the coordinator on these topic areas (as far I understand) is Kirill Lokshin. However, he already got involved in the article's discussions-page and also on his talk-page ]. Therefore, to have as much objectivity as possible, I'd like an unbiased 'third-party' opinion.] 14:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :::For Charles & Natobxl:I've had a look over the dispute given a third (and hopefully unbiased) opinion at ]. ] 14:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :] is an admin, so it is smart to take a lead from this person. I don't know what ''coordinator on these topic areas''; that's not a formally recognised status. A relevant WikiProject is a good place to look: talk pages for WikiProjects serve as topic forums. ] 14:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :: I hoped that we could find more third-party observers to comment ... without getting friends and family onboard ofcourse :-) Actually, ] did already volunteer an opinion. Like the rest of us, he too is involved in the discussion. We are all 'in the ring'. That is why I'm trying to get some outside observation as suggested by Misplaced Pages guidelines on consensus finding.] 17:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :For a further administrator opinion, post a request on ]. ] 08:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == RfArb Cbuhl79 == | |||
| Hi Charles, | |||
| I have no idea if out of band contact is apporpriate, and I sincerely apologize if it is not. However, I feel this issue is important enough to warrant a little follow up by me. You are the first ArbCom member to vote, and your reasoning "let this dispute die" seems to be influenced by the user's constant rambling about content. I'm calling his behaviour into question. Without some sort of censure, this guy is going to (1) damage the credibility of wikipedia; and (2) frustrate other editors to the point that they probably will not wish to continue working on whatever articles he's hawking. It seems absolutely inconceivable to me that he can get away with all this -- he is consistantly dishonest, acts in bad faith, and uses good faith issued to him to slander the reputations of the other editors involved (about half a dozen). How should this be appropriately handled, if not by RfArb? Thanks for any advice! /] 11:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :He actually contacted me offline, and I said getting another admin involved is the right way: take advice from an outside admin. He seems to have gone about this the wrong way, though. So I'm not surprised that there has been some blowback. I'm prepared to put this down to ignorance of the system, and my hope is that with further community involvement, he will figure out that nothing much comes from unpopularity. ] 11:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::My main concern is that after your counsel (and admonishments from other users) he misreported facts to administrative notice boards against me, and even put warning templates on my spaces. I've been on Misplaced Pages since 2004, and have never once been involved in any kind of administrative action or process. I tried a week ago to let this die as ignorance of the system, but the user seems particularly unwilling to listen to anyone else regarding what is proper content, action, or behavior. We're not talking about one or two people, either -- we're talking about his defiance of probably 8 to 10 editors' patient and good-faith efforts to handle it as you have suggested (references available). I am seeking this remediation as a last resort -- I am convinced that the only thing that will prevent him from causing more problems (by disinterpreting more policies and crying foul at every turn) is going to be disciplinary action. The fact that he further exacerbated the situation after you told him to talk to an admin and I told him I was dropping it in good faith that he was misunderstanding the system seems to be a perfect example of my point. In any case, I appreciate the time you've taken. :-) /] 15:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| If it's as bad as you say, and is affecting many people rather than just being a localised dispute, then a community ban becomes possible. That is, admins collectively decide on this. A community ban can be appealed to the ArbCom, who will review what was done at that point. ] 16:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| == Question about what you said about CoI on the Gary Weiss page == | |||
| You said ] "WP:COI doesn't say that, it says the exact opposite. It has been heavily refactored in recent days, but the whole trend is that deletions are under standard policies, and there is no guideline about leveraging conflicts of interest into deletions.". Now, I get the feeling I'm probably being pretty dumb, but were you responding to me or Cla68? Thanks for your time. ] 21:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| :To Cla68. ] 23:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thank you. Don't know why I didn't figure that out. ] 23:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 15:58, 14 January 2025
 Archives |
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
CorruptionOfEconomics
Thank you so much, Charles, for creating the article page.
If you are interested as a "lead author" there is a compiled version of the text here https://globalartscollective.org/corruption-of-economics.htm#top, or I cand lend you a copy of the second edition, 2022, from Shepheard-Walwyn Ltd.
- PS. I just seen the latest version. You are obviously interested...
Janosabel (talk) 23:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
- I will be able to get a library copy of the book. Charles Matthews (talk) 05:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hello Charles. Would it be enough for now to make Capitalism As Power into a stub class? Janosabel (talk) 19:37, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- I will be able to get a library copy of the book. Charles Matthews (talk) 05:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Seasons Greetings!
.JPG)
Hello there, 'tis the season again, believe it or not, the years pass so quickly now! A big thank you for all of your contributions to Misplaced Pages in 2024! Wishing you a Very Merry Christmas and here's to a happy and productive 2025! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
 | |
| Six years! |
|---|
Best wishes for the season, and beyond! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 66
The Misplaced Pages Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 66, November – December 2024
- Les Jours and East View Press join the library
- Tech tip: Newspapers.com
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Misplaced Pages Library team --17:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Capital as Power
- Hello again. Charles, there is a review of Capital as Power here https://capitalaspower.com/2022/01/owen-lynch-book-review-capital-as-power/
- Janosabel (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
- Under WP:UGC, that review is unlikely to be accepted as a reliable source. I have found a review by Salvador Santino Regilme that will be useful. Charles Matthews (talk) 04:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Good! Thank you. Janosabel (talk) 10:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Under WP:UGC, that review is unlikely to be accepted as a reliable source. I have found a review by Salvador Santino Regilme that will be useful. Charles Matthews (talk) 04:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
What more should I do to make this: https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Janosabel/sandbox#Capital_As_Power%E2%80%94A_Study_of_Order_and_Creorder into a Stub class entry?
- At present it reads like an essay. WP:TONE says that "Articles and other encyclopedic content should be written in a formal tone". Below that, under WP:PRONOUN, it says "Articles should not be written from a first- or second-person perspective." So when you write "I", there is a problem.
- What I saw in the review was a reference to the Cambridge capital controversy. This is helpful background. If Capital as Power builds on some positions taken in that controversy, there should be a way to explain the argument of the book more simply. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)