User talk:Akliman/Archive 1

Please stop sending repetitive messages to my discussion page. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

OK. Please stop sending any messages to this page. I already have more than enough watchdoggerel than I can handle on the TSSI talk page. v = 0 15:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To J.Smith

Dear Sir,

I respect the need to follow Wikipedia policies. My question is this: How can I and my colleagues do so? How can we protect an article we care about from being attacked and facing deletion, while adhering to Wikipedia policies?

I overhauled and improved the "Temporal single-system interpretation" article a few weeks ago, adding citations and quotes, removing tendentious, unsourced claims, correcting factual errors, etc. Since then, the article has been under continual attack from "Watchdog07." (I strongly suspect that "Watchdog07" and "Marxian_Lurker" are sockpuppets of the indefinitely-blocked user "Hudisp"). "Watchdog07" was continually reverting, reducing the article to a stub (thereby making it a candidate for quick deletion), trying to remove content rather than improve it (by citing sources, etc.) and, in general, being disruptive.

I believe that "Watchdog07" wishes to keep the public from being aware of the TSSI, and that he is purposely being disruptive in order to provoke others, cause everyone involved with the article to be blocked indefinitely, and thereby keep a quality, neutral article on the TSSI from appearing on Wikipedia. I further believe that this goal is connected with a decade-long vendetta by "Watchdog07" against Alan Freeman and me.

When I overhauled the article and notified some colleagues, they were pleased with it. When "Watchdog07" then started attacking the article, I notified them again. A few (Alan XAX Freeman, Annejaclard, and M.Posner) decided to help defend the article against "Watchdog07's" continuous reverting and deletion of content. (They are all real, distinct people, as am I. I’ll be happy to provide empirical support for this fact.) I suppose this defense of the article makes them "single-purpose accounts," but as I see it, their single purpose is laudable and in keeping with Wikipedia’s goals. They and I wish to defend an article on a subject we care about from being attacked or deleted. Once that goal is achieved, some of us wish to go on and improve the quality and neutrality of related Wikipedia articles. I hope that this does not make us unwelcome.

How can they and I defend the TSSI article from attack, and the threat of being being turned into a stub and deleted, in a manner that conforms with Wikipedia policies?

For further information about "Watchdog07," "Hudisp," etc., you may wish to look at Ticket#2007042110015031 as well as my complaint about him sent yesterday, also to the "Wikipedia information team," info-en@wikimedia.org, which referenced the same ticket number.

Sincerely,

Andrew Kliman

Department of Economics

Pace University

Pleasantville, NY 10570

akliman@pace.edu

v = 0 22:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to review our guidelines on dispute resolution. My level of involvement is limited to the ending the disruption to the project caused by the edit war that has been going on. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:37, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and another question

Dear Sir,

Thank you for your quick response.

I have studied -- carefully, I thought -- the dispute resolution policy several times during the last couple of weeks. I evidently do not understand it. It seems to me that my colleagues and I have been doing exactly what the dispute resolution policy stipulates:

"discuss the issue on a talk page ... stay cool and do not mount personal attacks. Take the other person's perspective into account and try to reach a compromise. ... [Attempt] sustained discussion and serious negotiation."

I do not understand why doing exactly this is an "edit war." Could you please explain? When colleagues of mine were blocked last night, the content of the article had remained intact for more than a day ("Watchdog07" placed a "neutrality disputed" tag at the top of the page, but the article remained unchanged.) This occurred because 2 administrators intervened on Thursday -- in actions I welcomed -- restoring the content that "Watchdog07's" sock puppet deleted (and deleted again) and by issuing a "request for comment," as indicated by the dispute resolution policy.

One of the administrators wrote in the edit summary: "leave article be until talk page disc. is over." That was a directive, I thought, to continue the talk page discussion. And in the hours leading up to the blocking of my colleagues, there was indeed much activity on the talk page, particularly an ongoing effort to come to a working definition of "consensus" and to reason with "Watchdog07" in order to get him to drop his charges against the article. Isn't this what the dispute resolution policy stipulates, and what the administrator suggested continue?

On another matter: I wholeheartedly agree with the goal of ending the disruption to the project. But the disruption hasn't been ended. It has only been delayed for 48 hours, because "Watchdog07" will be back and will stop at nothing short of his goal of preventing a quality, neutral article on the TSSI from appearing on Wikipedia. The only reason there is an apparent edit war is that he has declared war on the article and the rest of us in order to attain that goal.

Sincerely,

Andrew Kliman

Department of Economics

Pace University

Pleasantville, NY 10570

akliman@pace.edu

v = 0 03:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend moving on to mediation. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Documentation of Watchdog07's latest violations of WP:NPA

Watchdog07 has requested that I document the presence of personal attacks, by him, against me, in a comment by him that appears at [1].

I will be happy to comply. His text reads:

I'm happy that JoshuaZ saw Andrew Kliman's threat against the Yale Economic Review article for what it was. I'm happy that someone else stepped in and overturned Akliman's action. I'm unhappy that Andrew Kliman took his action to begin with. To call what happened a "true example of COLLABORATION AND CONSENSUS", is comical since Andrew Kliman NEVER addressed the concerns of this editor on this page. He NEVER showed on this page the slightest concern for collaboration. That was extremely disrespectful to this editor, to the students of Yale University, and to everyone who is a GENUINE supporter of the movement for pluralism in economics. I hope AKliman has learned a lesson from (what most be) a very humiliating experience for him. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

It is a personal attack to allege that I made a "threat" against the article.

It is a personal attack to opine that my statement is "comical."

It is a personal attack to allege that I "NEVER showed on this page the slightest concern for collaboration."

It is a personal attack to opine that my actions were "extremely disrespectful."

It is a personal attack to imply that I am not a "GENUINE supporter of the movement for pluralism in economics."

It is a personal attack to "hope AKliman has learned a lesson from (what most be) a very humiliating experience."

(The last statement is also at variance with my DELIGHT that JoshuaZ fixed the problems in the article to which I called attention by placing the warning tag about it reading like an ad, but that's another matter.)

justice-thunders-condemnation 19:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Temporal_Single-System_interpretation, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

I have agreed to mediation. I wish to call your attention at this time to two edits that I made to the rfm - 1. I indicated that I do not consider Alan_XAX_Freeman (talk · contribs) and M.posner (talk · contribs) to be legitimate concerned parties; 2. I added to the issues to be resolved the content of the Pluralism_in_economics and Marxian_economics articles. I do not wish to discuss these edits with you at this time. I am only letting you know of them as a courtesy. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Temporal single-system interpretation.

For the Mediation Committee, ^demon^{[omg plz]}

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 12:17, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

Can we hold off the name calling

Guys, really. I mean any little thing each of you say is going to inflame the other side and piss them off for no good purpose. Let's calm the situation down? MrMacMan^Talk 17:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear MrMacMan,

I am sorry that you construed my explanation as name-calling. On the TSSI talk page, I have explained my actual motivation and the reason why I think it was appropriate and advisable for me to cite past and recent history.

Citation of facts doesn't violate WP:NPA and I don't think it is name calling. For instance, I think there's a big difference between saying "X raped Y" and saying "X is a rapist." The first isn't name-calling in my book, while the second is. The first statement refers to an action; the second labels the person as an embodiment of the action.

I realize that to an outsider, it definitely looks like my comment "inflamed" and "pissed off." Having no direct knowledge of the individual's mind-state, I am not ready to draw this conclusion, and, based on past experience and the total context, I actually find it extremely improbable. I'll be happy to explain more, but privately.

justice-thunders-condemnation 20:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A recomendation...

If this are your requirements to colaborate as in a colaborative enviroment then I would recomend that you find anouther endevor to pratisipate in. I will be making note of this on the administrator's incident noticeboard for review and posible further action. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 12:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir,

I would defitintely agree with you that I should find a different endeavor to participate in, IF it were the case that I were requiring an escrow account before I would agree to discuss editing matters or to go to mediation. This, however is not the case. I am perfectly willing to discuss editing matters and to engage in mediation without that, and I have never said nor suggested otherwise.

Contrary to what you wrote on the administrator's noticeboard, I made no "ridiculous ultimatum," because I made no ultimatum at all. I offered to be the one to FILE the request for mediation if Watchdog07 wishes to put the funds in an escrow account. I have continually expressed my willingness to engage in MEDIATION--and unconditionally. If, for instance, Watchdog07 files the request for mediation, I shall be happy to agree to it. I have said so repeatedly on the TSSI article's talk page [[2]]:

"If Watchdog07 files a request for mediation that includes all 5 original parties and all 3 articles mentioned in the original request, I will agree to mediation."

I won't waste any more of my time filing another request. I continue to agree to mediation. I will be happy to answer specific questions about the filing procedure if I am asked politely and respectfully."

"I remain willing to go to mediation as long as all 5 parties and all 3 article are included in the request, and no conditions are imposed by any party on others."

"I am not imposing conditions on anyone before I will enter mediation."

"I remain willing to go to mediation without preconditions, in order to resolve matters, thereby allowing the public to receive high-quality, neutral information about the TSSI on Wikipedia."

So when you wrote, in reference to my offer to file the mediation request, "I'm reading it as a 'Put money on the line or I won't work with you,'" your reading was unfortunately a serious misreading.

(The reason this all came about is that Watchdog07 wanted mediation, and agreed to mediation after I filed a request, then turned around and reneged. There was then a second discussion of mediation. In light of Watchdog07 having reneged, I said that I would not be the one to FILE the mediation request, though I am eager to go to mediation. He refused to be the one to file, claiming lack of time. In a spirit of compromise, I then indicated that I would agree to be the one to do the filing, but, given that I don't want to have my time wasted again, I need to be asssured that this will not happen. Hence the offer on my part to file the request subject to the establishment of an escrow account. This seems perfectly reasonable to me. I have been trying and trying and trying to work out a solution. I proposed mediation; it was rejected by Watchdog07. But I continue to try to get him to come to mediation. I indicate my willingness to go to mediation, and without conditions, if he files the request. He refuses. So, even though he caused me to waste a LOT of time--learning to fill out the mediation form, filing it, putting notices on 7 different pages--only a few days before, I even offer yet again to be the one to do the filing, if I am protected againt a double-cross that causes me another massive waste of time. What more can I do?)

In light of the facts I have documented and explained, I respectfully ask you to acknowledge that you have misinterpreted my behavior, to withdraw your above recommendation, and to retract the statements on the adminstrators' noticeboard about an "ultimatum" and "Put money on the line or I won't work with you." The facts are very different.

justice-thunders-condemnation 14:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Akliman, you need to remove this ~~demand~~ request for $10,000 in escrow (just blank it from the page entirely) or you will be blocked for disruption. Also in the future, keep WP:NLT in mind and don't tread anywhere near that line. ··coel acan 13:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am about to comply with this demand, which, however, I regard as very improper, given that I mede no demand nor legal threat (nor insinuated any legal threat). Please read the facts as I have recited them above and please go to the TSSI talk page to verify that I am correct.

I respectfully ask you to withdraw the claims you have made against me.

justice-thunders-condemnation 14:10, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think I have misread the situation. You have basically state you won't do mediation (Ie, proceed with the dispute resolution processes) without ridiculous conditions. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 14:43, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, sir, but what you say here is contrary to the facts as outlined above. I have not stated or implied that I "won't do mediation ... without ridiculous conditions." I have repeated stated the opposite, and do so again. I have repeatedly said that I agree to mediation without ANY conditions. I quote from my message above:

"I am perfectly willing to discuss editing matters and to engage in mediation without [an escrow account], and I have never said nor suggested otherwise."

"I have continually expressed my willingness to engage in MEDIATION--and unconditionally."

"If Watchdog07 files a request for mediation that includes all 5 original parties and all 3 articles mentioned in the original request, I will agree to mediation."

"I continue to agree to mediation. I will be happy to answer specific questions about the filing procedure if I am asked politely and respectfully."

"I remain willing to go to mediation as long as all 5 parties and all 3 article are included in the request, and no conditions are imposed by any party on others."

"I am not imposing conditions on anyone before I will enter mediation."

"I remain willing to go to mediation without preconditions, in order to resolve matters, thereby allowing the public to receive high-quality, neutral information about the TSSI on Wikipedia."

How much clearer do I need to be? I agree to mediation without conditions! Period!

In light of the facts I have documented and explained (again), I respectfully ask you to acknowledge that you have misinterpreted my behavior, to withdraw your above recommendation, to withdraw your comment that I have indicated that I "won't do mediation ... without ridiculous conditions," and to retract the statements on the adminstrators' noticeboard about an "ultimatum" and "Put money on the line or I won't work with you." The facts are very different.

justice-thunders-condemnation 15:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I may have misrepresented you somewhat. It was not a "demand" but a "request" for $10,000 in escrow. It was still disruptive. Thank you for removing it. Please keep Wikipedia matters internal to Wikipedia; requests for any kind of off-wiki behavior are really quite off-topic, at the very minimum. ··coel acan 14:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your apparent apology, coelacan, and I am glad that you removed the word "demand."

Since the other party is under absolute NO LEGAL OR OTHER OBLIGATION to request that I, not he, be the one to file the mediation request--I have repeatedly affirmed that I will agree to mediation no matter who files the request--there is absolutely no legal threat nor hint of legal threat here.

There is simply a continuing effort on my part to bend over backwards to get the other party to agree to mediation--even to the point of filing the request myself, if I am sufficiently protected against being double-crossed a second time if he has me file the request and then refuses to agree to it.

I am perfectly willing to put my proposal in a form that you find acceptable. How can I (1) offer to go to mediation WITHOUT conditions, (2) offer to file the mediation request a second time, and (3) still protect myself against being double-crossed a second time by once again going to the considerable effort of filing the mediation request and then having Watchdog07 refuse to go to mediation?

I am trying again and again, bending over backwards, to find a solution. I just don't understand your rules and don't know what I can do, in a manner you find acceptable, to try and get a very intransigent party to agree to mediation.

justice-thunders-condemnation 15:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just keep conditions reasonable. If mediation fails (or watchdog continues to refuse to mediate) there are further steps you can take in the dispute resolution prossess. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir,

I will be more than happy to comply with your request to keep conditions reasonable. I don't believe I proposed any unreasonable conditions. I have continually agreed to mediation without making any conditions.

In light of the facts I have documented and explained, I respectfully ask you to acknowledge that you misinterpreted my behavior, to withdraw your comment that I have indicated that I "won't do mediation ... without ridiculous conditions," and to retract the statements on the adminstrators' noticeboard about an "ultimatum" and "Put money on the line or I won't work with you." The facts are very different.

justice-thunders-condemnation 22:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't evaluated the whole of the situation (and frankly I'd prefer to avoid doing so; I only wanted to get the money and lawyers off the table). Assuming that what you say is accurate, that you have agreed to mediation and the other party will not,

Of course it is accurate. I have stated again and again, on this page and on the TSSI talk page, that I agree to mediation unconditionally. justice-thunders-condemnation 22:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

then you'll have to work around the other party. There are two options for this. WP:RFC can bring in disinterested users who are have not yet given input on the talk page. If you can convince them (whoever shows up) that you are right, then you may potentially gather consensus to go ahead with your preferred version despite the other party. If RFC is tried and failed, and the other editor won't agree to mediation, and will not communicate or work toward compromise, you may be able to get your case accepted by the WP:ARBCOM, which can give binding decisions. As J.S. says, though, try to get mediation to work, first. ··coel acan 16:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried the RFC route several times, but it has only worked temporarily, if at all. For instance, at one point 2 outsiders (one an admin) reverted Watchdog07's stuff, but this did not stop him.

I don't mind trying an RFC again, but I thought that this step precedes mediation.

I would love to "try to get mediation to work, first." How? May I please have some help?

I am trying to play by the rules, but nothing seems to stop him from removing plain, factual, reliably sourced statements, without first obtaining consensus (or even trying to do so). I can keep trying to restore the content he deletes, but then I'm subject to charges of edit warring. Isn't there something that can be done to bring in a third party to determine that alleged spam and advertising aren't that, that material which he declares not to be reliably sourced is indeed reliably sourced, that supposedly non-neutral content consists of plain statements of fact, reliably sourced? Doesn't Wikipedia have some way of distinguishing perpetrators from victims?

justice-thunders-condemnation 22:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As coelacan stated, arbitration might be the best next step in this dispute. Arbitration is binding even if Watch does not participate. Unfortunately it's a very long procedures. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My name needs to be cleared

To J.smith

Dear Sir,

In light of the facts I have documented and explained, I respectfully ask you to acknowledge that you misinterpreted my behavior, to withdraw your comment that I have indicated that I "won't do mediation ... without ridiculous conditions," and to retract the statements on the adminstrators' noticeboard about an "ultimatum" and "Put money on the line or I won't work with you."

My reputation is involved here. My name needs to be cleared. Please note that the WP:BLP policy applies to all Wikipedia pages, not just articles.

I also ask at this time that you indefinitely block Watchdog07, because of his persistent personal attacks (see especially the TSSI talk page), his harassment (see especially his communications to two individuals unknown to me [3] and [4]), and his malicious editing practices. As an instance of the latter, please look at his latest version of the TSSI article [[5]], which was adorned with THIRTEEN warning tags, and which referred to proponents of the TSSI as "New Orthodox Marxists," an extremely derogatory and incendiary term--basically the equivalent of the N word--which no proponent of the TSSI accepts. I promptly reverted the article, since this was an extreme and blatant violation of WP:BLP.

As I noted in my message of 29 April (above), "I wholeheartedly agree with the goal of ending the disruption to the project. But the disruption hasn't been ended. It has only been delayed for 48 hours, because "Watchdog07" will be back and will stop at nothing short of his goal of preventing a quality, neutral article on the TSSI from appearing on Wikipedia. The only reason there is an apparent edit war is that he has declared war on the article and the rest of us in order to attain that goal."

justice-thunders-condemnation 04:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors.

You have actually performed four reverts in less than 24 hours to an earlier version of Temporal single-system interpretation, which is a blockable violation of the rule. Since you are a fairly new user, I am merely warning you, but please review the 3RR to avoid breaking it again. Bishonen | talk 16:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Dear Bishonen,

Please look at WP:BLP. Content that violates this policy may be reverted at any time, and is not subject to the 3 revert rule. How many reversions have I made within the last 24 hours that fail explictly to note that I am reverting because of a WP:BLP violation? It is only these that count.

justice-thunders-condemnation 19:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on my page. Bishonen | talk 20:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Blocked from editing

I see that you have reverted again. You have been blocked for one hour. Please understand that your argument that you have ~~a right to violate~~ not violated the 3RR is unacceptable, or you will soon find yourself blocked again, and then it'll be for a longer period of time. Note that you can still write on this page, your talkpage, even though you're blocked. If you wish an uninvolved admin to review the block, place {{unblock|reason}} below this notification, with "reason" replaced by the reason you think you ought to be unblocked. If you have any trouble getting it to work, just put {{unblock}} and type the reason at the bottom of the page. Bishonen | talk 20:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Dearest Bishonen,

Unfortunately, your statement that I have put forward an "argument that [I] have a right to violate 3RR" is at variance with the facts. I respect the 3-revert rule. I would never knowingly violate it. I would certainly never claim the right to violate it.

My argument is instead that the rule makes an exception for cases in which WP:BLP has been violated, and that my reversions come under that exception. Please note, therefore, that my argument is that I am complying with the 3RR, not violating it.

I use my real name on Wikipedia, and incorrect charges can have and have affected my professional reputation. I therefore respectfully request that you withdraw the statement that I have put forward an "argument that [I] have a right to violate 3RR."

Thank you in advance,

justice-thunders-condemnation 22:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. I have crossed out the offending words and substituted the claim you actually make. Bishonen | talk 02:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Your signature, a request

Please consider changing your signature to a form that has an apparent association with your username (and is, ideally, a bit shorter). Alternately, consider a username change. The policies on signatures are lax, so please consider this as merely a humble request towards which I'd appreciate your consideration. Jouster (whisper) 22:01, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jouster,

I think you make two good points (association, length). Thanks much. What do you think of:

andrew-the-k 22:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad. How about this one, which preserves a touch of your old one:

andrew-the-k jtc

Jouster (whisper) 23:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jouster,

Thanks for the quick response. The "jtc" doesn't mean much on its own, and it adds length, but I really like your idea of different parts of the signature pointing to different pages. Thanks! It works well with just andrew-the-k:

andrew-the-k

but I haven't yet figured out how to make the middle one hot. I'll work on it.

andrew-the-k 23:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would have worked fine, but you missed the space in "User Talk", as so: the. Self-links will simply be bolded, but if you test it out on a sandbox, you'll see the middle link works correctly with a space in it. Jouster (whisper) 02:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you have gotten it sorted yet, but I have posted an example at User talk:Jouster/sandbox. To repeat, though--the "the" link will merely be bolded when you sign your own Talk page, since it's a link to itself. Jouster (whisper) 02:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Kliman

Are you actually Andrew Kliman? I read your book about the TSSI!

Anyways, I think you should be okay with what it says there now - the criticism section looks to me like it's very fair to both sides. --Haemo 01:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Haemo,

Yes, I am actually I. I'm interested in how you learned about my book and -- seeing your background in math econ -- in what you thought about it the way it dealt with math stuff. I tried to write an accessible book, with as little math as possible, and yet still be as precise as I could. It damned near killed me -- everything took forever to write.

I really appreciate your letting me know that the criticism section looks fair. But I'm afraid that this is very temporary. There's a concerted effort by the opponents of the TSSI to prevent neutral material on the TSSI from appearing -- even repeated accusations of fraud against me, persistent deletions of references to the TSSI-related IWGVT and COPE even in the Pluralism_in_economics article, "spam" and "ad" warning tags around my book, "hoax" tags around COPE -- and an administrator's proposed solution to the character assassination, etc. is to prevent me (and others) from editing the TSSI article. (You can read about all this on the admin noticeboard, under the very civil title "Disruptive Pattern of Behavior by AKliman.")

So I haven't found Wikipedia a welcoming, civil, or even rational place, unfortunately. The prevailing view seems to be that "it takes two to tango". What isn't appreciated is that "it takes two" to have one assassinate the other's character.

Take care. andrew-the-k 15:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually learned about your book from a friend, who recommended reading about some of the responses to the "debunking" of Marx, a priori, when I was talking about it with him a while ago. While I'm not completely qualified to judge some of the ideas I read about, it was reasonably clear overall - I also found a paper, when I was poking around on EconLit, that had some criticisms of one of your related papers (I don't remember which, and I think you've since replied to it) that was largely mistaken, but some of the more technical arguments seemed to agree with my impressions. Specifically, the main problem I found when I was reading it was that the definitions in some parts were not perfectly clear - however, that's probably mostly my fault, and I could generally pick it up through some close reading.

On the mathematics side, I actually checked through a fair number of the formulas and calculations given, and found it to be rock-solid - I was very impressed; I've done the same for some published papers, and found unclear reasoning or poor justifications. It definitely dove-tailed well with the text that you'd written - for me, I tend to think in terms of an abstract model, when I look at economic papers, and this really worked well in that respect. Unfortunately, I had the book on recall from a university across Canada, so I only had it for a couple of days, before I had to return it. I photocopied parts of it to study later, but whenever you do that, you inevitably forget something you want. Anyways, I would be very interested in seeing a very technical paper on the subject, too - well, mathematically technical, as opposed to intellectually...you know what I mean! Unfortunately, I don't really know if you've published one or not - I poked around, but never to much avail.

I'm sorry that you haven't had a good experience on Wikipedia - I will try to keep a watch on TSSI and Pluralism in Economics as well. Sometimes, what you mostly need is some more voices! --Haemo 22:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"It is considered highly inappropriate to advertise Wikipedia articles in order to attract users with known views in anh attempt to strengthen one side of a debate" WP:MEAT Watchdog07 02:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He did not solicit me in order to attempt to strengthen his views, nor are my views on economics "well-known" in the slightest. Please, don't accuse me of being anyones sock-puppet because I happened to read a book by him, and mention it to him. --Haemo 02:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haemo is right. Watchdog07 is wrong. His allegation against me is false, as the record (above) shows, and I condemn his insinuations against Haemo. I offer my sincerest apologies to Haemo.

Dearest Watchdog07, you know that you are not permitted to interfere with the content of this page. That does not mean that you may trespass onto this page whenever YOU consider it appropriate. What YOU think and feel is without any importance whatsoever. What is important is what I think and feel. If you wish to say something here, you MUST politely request permission, tell me what you wish to say, and offer a full justification for your request. If I think that your justification is correct, and if I think it is desirable that you say something on this page, then permission will be granted for a one-time exception to my policy. andrew-the-k 04:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, regardless of how you feel about editorial oversight on your talk page, in the interests of good will and detente, I'd say it's worth just not responding to messages you feel are provocative on your talk page. I can now tell there is a lot of bad blood going on here, but if you guys want to actually work it it, it's probably best to just let the little things slide for a time. I'm willing to help everyone mediate the ongoing argument, but it's going to require everyone to just take it easy for a while. --Haemo 05:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Akliman, not everyone is out to get you. Watchdog07, even the most cursory examination of what was posted here would have confirmed Haemo is not a meatpuppet. ~~Haemo~~Watchdog07, stop stalking. Akliman, stop rising to the bait, and please remember that Wikipedia is a community. If you want a monologue, as opposed to a Talk page to which anyone can contribute, create a website. Jouster (whisper) 08:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't stalked anyone! I noticed a user with the name "Andrew Kliman", who was an author of a book I once read. I posted on his talk page asking if that was the case, and giving my 0.02$ relating to a recent post on WP:AIV. He mentioned he had been having a dispute on another page, too. I went there, to see what was up, and noticed that it needed a re-write, and a fresh start. I haven't "followed anyone around whatsoever, and I deny any assertion to the contrary. --Haemo 09:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Fixed! Jouster (whisper) 09:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE stop this discussion. WP:NPA stipulates that we should discuss the content, not the contributor. Much of what has recently been written here discusses contributors, not content. Also, since I use my real name here, there are serious WP:BLP issues. I have a right and an obligation to try to protect my professional reputation. I'm considering deleting whatever I must delete in order to do so. andrew-the-k 09:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comment: Response to Sunray question on translations

Dear Andrew-the-k,

Please see my reply to user:sunray's query about translations of articles from other language Wikipedia's. Comments are welcome and I have suggested to Sunray that these are posted on his talk page - he may have another proposal. I am endeavouring to contact other active editors who might be interested in these proposals and would welcome your suggestions on who these could be. I intend to post this identical message on the user talk pages of andrew-the-k, Haemo, Watchdog07, and M.Posner

Alan XAX Freeman 08:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Board Candidacy

Hi! I'm leaving you this note because we've had extensive and/or productive interaction over the course of my time on this Wiki. I (yep, little ol' Jouster!) am running for election to the Wikimedia Board of Trustees. I would greatly appreciate it if you would please take a look at my submission of candidacy, and consider endorsing me, as that is a requirement for me to stand for election.

If you have any questions or concerns about this notice, please don't hesitate to poke me on my Talk page. If you object to this solicitation for endorsement, please do not hesitate to remove it from your Talk page with my apologies; it will not appear again.

I look forward to serving you all on the Board! Jouster (whisper) 18:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of private email correspondence from David Laibman talk page

I am lodging a request with the arbitrators to have the private email correspondence you published in the David Laibman talk page removed. User:Jurriaan 20:38 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the e-mails from the talkpage. It is unproductive to quote private e-mails on Wikipedia where, as here, doing so is upsetting contributors. This material is not to be restored. Newyorkbrad 21:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In general, private emails should not be disclosed anywhere on Wikipedia without the consent of the sender and recipient(s). Thanks, Thatcher131 15:21, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The email message in question was not private, as was explained in one of my comments that was suppressed without my knowledge, much less my consent, and without due process. I will have more to say about this in the future, since the suppressed information disclosed collaboration among several individuals to turn a biography of one of them into a puff piece, partly by removal of properly sourced information (especially a quotation of his own words). andrew-the-k 16:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

after the rain

Dear Andrew,

Seeing that your last post was made several years ago, I doubt you are checking on or contributing to Wikipedia any longer and I can understand why. I just spent the last little while going over the TSSI talk page, reading your comments. You're right, the article is very poorly written, repetitive and confusing. It never ceases to amaze me how vulgar economists and supporters of the status quo seek not the truth but rather try to hide their own unexamined 'intellectual' biases and assumptions under a veil of neutrality. Even so-called neutral WP editors and mediators are to blame here. You are constantly having to defend yourself against false accusations and claims. Apparently there is no limit to your patience and energy. If Wikipedia gets it together, it just may create a suitable environment that allows for the possibility of experts in the field such as yourself, if time allows it, to contribute without being attacked by uninformed individuals with their own hidden agendas. The amount of schoolboy drivel on Wikipedia is an interesting phenomena that deserves its own page!