User talk:SlamDiego/Archive 5

Contents

Orc Hives

Some earlier messages may be found

· in the first orc hive, or

· in the second orc hive, or

· in the third orc hive.

· in the fourth orc hive.

Marginal utility[edit]

thank you so much for the improvements. At the time, I was writing a paper on marginal utility and wasn't sure if I understood it completely, so I looked to wikipedia for some help... obviously I was dissapointed. Had this version of the article been there then, I'm sure it would've helped me a lot. —Xiaoxitu 03:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Good job on the marginal utility article. I'm glad someone finally showed up who understands it more thoroughly than me and others. You may want to improve the marginalism article too. Also the labor theory of value, subjective theory of value, and paradox of value articles may be of interest. Thanks for your efforts. —Anarcho-capitalism 01:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. After I've done some more work on that article, I plan to tackle the Marginalism article. I may deal with some of the others later. —SlamDiego 01:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if you could provide sources that would be great, otherwise the information is eventually going to be deleted by someone who doesn't like what it says. —Anarcho-capitalism 01:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The history section has lots of explicit referencing, so I assume that your concern is for the earlier section. I could put sourcing thereïn, but a problem would be that those same foes could reject any of the potential sources. —SlamDiego 01:40, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, according to policy, as long as the sources are from books that are not self-published by the authors or from articles that were published in journals, they they can't reject them. If they delete sourced information, it's considered disruptive and vandalistic. If something is not sourced, according to policy, anyone is free to delete it. And believe me they will. —Anarcho-capitalism 01:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't deny your point. It's just that there's a limit to what can be done here. —SlamDiego 02:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding reversions made on 10 March 2007 to Marginal utility[edit]

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 12 hours. William M. Connolley 17:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's an old joke about nuclear grenades: “Who'd throw it?” I guess that we have one answer. —SlamDiego 17:52, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: These reversions weren't of the same set of changes, and weren't (on my reading of the 3RR) a violation of the 3RR. But the issue probably wouldn't be worth argument even if it weren't moot. —SlamDiego 23:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hayek and Marx[edit]

Hey, Slam Diego, I was reading the article on Marginal Utility, and was interested in Hayek's particular claim that Marx must have read one of the early marginalists, and was thus demoralized and couldn't write the later volumes of Capital. I wanted to read the relevant bits of Hayek. I'm sure this is a well known claim, but I couldn't Google my way to finding it. Yours, frege1b Frege1b 17:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to say that I think I determined that you were the one who added this bit. Your management of the page seems excellent. Frege1b 17:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would note that Hayek was merely making a suggestion that this may explain Marx's interia; Marx certainly admitted to no such thing, and Hayek was a cautious man. I wouldn't say that Hayek's suggestion is particularly well-known, but it was at least parenthetically appropriate to the discussion. I will try to get the relevant cite for you. I encountered Hayek's suggestion through a secondary source; I believe that it was The Capitalist Alternative: An Introduction to Neo-Austrian Economics by Alexander H. Shand, but I am not perfectly sure of that. I'll drop by your Talk page when I've got the cite (and I'll stick a reference into the article). —SlamDiego 18:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phi Kappa Psi[edit]

Bless the dev who programmed watchlists! Natalie 03:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! —SlamDiego 03:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Random complaints[edit]

I think this guy Slam Diego must think he is the Professor of all. He likes to correct things that he has no knowledge of. [unsigned message from User:66.194.104.5, who is a suspected sockpuppet of User:Licorne]

I guess that you're irritated by my clean-up of the article on Catalin, and my noting that it reads like a puff-piece for American Catalin. In any event, you're in plain violation of WP:CIVIL here, which could result in yet another long-term block. —SlamDiego 07:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt this one is being used by Licorne — not his style at all, which is usually rather single-minded bluster. I think the IP is a college computer that he often used for awhile, but he hasn't used it in a long time. As for reformed — I suspect it is impossible for a crank anti-Semite like Licorne to reform. Just the same I doubt this is him. --Fastfission 03:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Random Smiley Award[edit]

For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award
originated by Pedia-I
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 14:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]