User talk:Ground Zero/Archive 18

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation

Hello Ground Zero/Archive 18! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.

If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.

Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.

You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

Quality over Quantity

You just blithely reverted a simple fix of a red link due to a slightly different titled element in a series in the See Also § of Communist Party of Canada which a little attention would have prevented. Are you in a drive for most edits or something? 72.228.177.92 (talk) 07:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I reverted that edit because it was incorrect. The Communist Party of Canada and the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist–Leninist) are separate and competing parties. An link to an article about Marxist-Leninist Party candidates doesn't belong in the CPC article anymore than a link to an article about NDP candidates would belong in the Liberal Party article. Please review WP:no personal attacks. Thank you. Ground Zero | t 13:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i c. I'd remove the redlink but now see its functionality. Should have inferred diff from similar situation in India. Also a query, at least this one, is not a personal attack, even if it expresses (an in this case unfounded) implied criticism. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 16:04, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, have made mistakes. I suggest that you ask genuine questions when you think someone has made a mistake, instead of accusing someone of ulterior motives, like being in a drive for the most edits, for example. You should WP:assume good faith, rather than assuming something else until someone demonstrates bad faith. Ground Zero | t 03:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for helping out with my students' work on the U.S. state party articles. They've got a deadline coming up this week, so I'm sure they appreciate it too! Sgelbman (talk) 19:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Fixing" redirects

I have noticed that you go around on pages related to Belgium to "fix" redirects to the political parties. You may not be aware that this is actually against our guideline Wikipedia:Redirect#Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken, "With a few limited exceptions, there are no good reasons to pipe links solely to avoid redirects. It is almost never helpful to replace [[redirect]] with [[target|redirect]]." Fram (talk) 09:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fram, I have reviewed Wikipedia:Redirect, and accept its guidance. I note, however, that in many cases my changes have been for other reasons, which are valid, including:

spelling out an acronym on first use per WP:ACRONYM - it seems that some editors of Belgian political articles assume incorrectly that these acronyms will means something to readers. "CD&V" means nothing to a lot of readers, while "Christian Democratic & Flemish" tells the reader somehting of what the party is about without having to click through to the page on the party; and
disambiguating pages - CDH and Spirit, which are often linked in these articles, do not link to the Belgian political parties, because these terms have many meanings.

In the cases where only the acronym appears, I think it is useful to allow the full name of the party to appear when hovering over the link, but I understand that Wikipedia:Redirect doesn't contemplate that. Perhaps it should, but I know that if I want to it do so, I will have to propose that change. Until then, I will abide by it where it applies. Ground Zero | t 22:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Political parties course

Hi -- I've seen you on my watchlist working on quite a few edits to articles about political parties in the last day or two, and wanted to make sure you're aware what's going on. The reason for the activity is Wikipedia:Ambassadors/Courses/U.S. Political Parties (Shamira Gelbman), which is a course running under the WP:USEP programme. I'm one of the online ambassadors for the course, but have been busy and have only been able to look at a handful of the edits the students have made so far. It seems to me that you have most or all of these articles on your watchlist already, but I wanted to let you know that I and others are also going to be looking at these, so you're not the only one dealing with these edits. If you have any questions about the course or the USEP, please just let me know; and if you want to divide up the articles so you don't have to monitor so many, let me know that too. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response -- yes, I will try to interact more with the students, but you're both good and fast, and seem to have more time at the keyboard than me! I will definitely try to get involved more, though, and please feel free to punt anything to me if there is too much to do. I also wanted to let you know about WT:USEP, where a talk page discussion is taking place about the education program and how to best organize it for the benefit of both Wikipedia and the students. Please consider commenting there. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ground Zero, I noted your message and will work on my sandbox before publishing in the public space. I am one of the students in the Political Parties course and I am very new to the Wikipedia language. Anasantiagoisu (talk) 01:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ground Zero, I read your message today. I was wondering if my section for the platform of the Nevada Democratic Party was the section that needed a more reliable source? The referencing gets confusing for me, as I am new to Wikipedia and all. Thank you so much for your help! CelsMdale —Preceding undated comment added 17:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Hindustan Republican Association

HAY?... I am really proud of you who always improves my edits & guide me also. Please keep it up as it will certainly increase my morale. Thank you once again.,

Dr.'Krant'M.L.Verma ^{(talk•Email)}

Krantmlverma (talk) 14:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coalition for the Future of Quebec

Here is some links

http://theconcordian.com/2011/03/01/new-political-group-suggests-shift-in-quebec-nationalism/

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/quebecs-rising-political-star-set-to-launch-new-party/article2208655/?service=mobile

http://www.montrealgazette.com/life/Anglophones+aren+board+with+Coalition+Future+Quebec/5559191/story.html

http://www2.canada.com/story.html?id=5559135 Michaelm (talk)

NightCastle-Megafan

Hi Ground Zero, Thanks for your patience. Love the Wikipedia concept. A constantly updated encyclopedia of facts and knowledge all at the finger tips of anyone that desires to use it. Not unlike a modern Library of Alexandria but unfortunately just as vulnerable to mischief and misinformation or wanton destruction. I'm extremely impressed that you are in the top 400 editors. I'm just trying to work on a couple of subjects and it is overwhelming. Meanwhile hope you had a great Thanksgiving.NightCastle-Megafan (talk) 03:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)NightCastle-MegafanNightCastle-Megafan (talk) 03:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Parliaments

What do you think about this edit? The "History" sections of the electoral district articles have tables listing the past MPs, plus the years they served, plus a column labeled "Parliament". Currently the Parliament column links to elections. This edit replaces the links to the election article with links to the Parliament. The links to the elections in the individual "Election results" boxes are kept. Do you see any objections to implementing this across all federal electoral districts? After gathering your feedback here, I will raise it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Electoral districts in Canada —maclean (talk) 06:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi maclean. I think that edit makes sense. In addition to avoiding the repetition of the link to the election article, it avoids the "surprise link" - i.e., the current piped link suggests that it will take you to the article about the parliament, but instead it takes you to an article about an election. I support this change. Thanks for asking. Regards, Ground Zero | t 10:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HEAD

Thanks for catching that one! --Orange Mike | Talk 21:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

76.65.26.94

Hi, I blocked User:76.65.26.94 for a week earlier, but you just shortened the block to three hours (which I've always felt is far too short-a-block duration) and dispensed with my rationale of "disruptive editing" for one of "vandalism", which I think is not necessarily accurate. Would you mind explaining, please. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was a screw-up on my part. I didn't notice that the account was already blocked. I don't like to block anons for very long in case other would-be users are kept out, but I see that this account is being blocked for a second time, so I guess we have no choice. I have restored the one-week block. Sorry about that. Ground Zero | t 22:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, and thanks. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Students

Just a note to say that I see the students are hard at it again. I have been busy and haven't had much time to help but will try to go through their contributions tonight and see what I can do. You might find this link useful in tracking their work, by the way. You may have noticed that I left some notes on talk pages for them; I've also had a couple of conversations at the instructor's talk page -- she has been very reasonable and willing to engage, so you may consider dropping her a note if you run into problems where she needs to clarify things for her students. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Mike. I am glad to see content being added, but some of it doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards, as you know. I am trying to keep on top of things, but there is too much going on. I notice that some of them are just cutting and pasting platform sections from party websites, and there is an ongoing problem with heading capitalization. I guess they've been taught one way in their classes, and Wikipedia does it another way. I am trying to keep up with both making corrections and explaining why, but it takes more time than I have. Any assistance you can provide is appreciated. Ground Zero | t 12:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I've been trying, in order to reduce the workload, is to do a detailed explanation at one talk page and then link to it from other talk pages. For example, I wrote Talk:Georgia_Republican_Party#History_section and Talk:Kansas_Republican_Party#Some_of_the_recently_added_material_is_too_similar_to_the_original_source and have linked to them in a couple of places so the students can see what the problems -- you might try linking to those, or to your own explanations, to save time. Also, if you leave a note for the instructor, she has been good about talking to the students and following up with the same directions. The student working on Georgia Republican Party doesn't really get it, for example, and she's asked him to come to her office hours today. So do let her know about the problems if you have time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Aecharri

I noticed your post on his/her talk page and felt I should respond. I first encountered(Oct 2009) Aecharri years ago after he had edited Gaston III[1] article, adding, in the reference section, a back history for Barbara Tuchman and this nonsensical sentence, "try to catch the attention of the general lay man on the complicated european politics of the time, as well as drawing conclussions in parallel with our times.". This is merely the "tip of the iceberg" of what Aecharri has "added" to articles.

By 2010, I had become tired of cleaning up Aecharri's edits and posted on his talk page how Wikipedia articles can not be used to reference other Wikipedia articles.[2].

In early June 2010, Aecharri responds with this[3], in which he complains of internet problems and states he is, "a Ph. D. holder University professor, for several tens of years". Which is highly questionable since he is being warned of the same problems on Spanish wikipedia(spelling errors, MOS, copyright issues).[4].

Instead, Aecharri complains to Sysop Jmabel[5], "I hope your paws are not as merciless with me as other American bears seem to be each time I research ANYTHING not related with the USA.". Most likely a reference to my user name.

In June 2010, Aecharri created Infante Peter, Count of Alburquerque.[6] This is the standard by which Aecharri's writes his articles. By the 2nd paragraph, the article is no longer about Infante Peter but any and everyone that had every crossed his path!

In March 2011, Aecharri decided to write a back history, in the reference section of Tomas de Torquemada article[7],[8], his reasoning in the edit summary, "Improving the traceability and the quality of the references given before 21st February 2011." Seriously? I reverted the addition and posted a warning on his talk page[9].

After 3+ years of general clean up, rewriting to make legible and removing unsubstantiated claims, it is clear to me that user:Aecharri does not care, will not change and will edit-war to keep his nonsense in Wikipedia articles. Numerous warnings and suggestions have only garnered snide remarks about "American bears". He has also been blocked for 3 days on Spanish wikipedia for incivility[10]. I would propose that unless user:Aecharri works with another user(Sysop would be better, that can understand Spanish) that he be blocked from editing. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I will bear his/her past behaviour in mind in determining next steps. I hope that s/he will heed my warnings and become a more constructive editor, but am prepared to block if s/he doesn't, as much as I don't like doing so. Given this user's history, endless patience would not seem appropriate. As I am neither American nor a bear, perhaps I will have more luck with this editor. Regards, Ground Zero | t 21:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I would like to thank you for the job you did on UIL, for me it is easier talk english than write english! There are still some errors I am going to sort out in the next days and at the same time i will try to make a bit more clear the historical process that brought to the UIL birth. More... I am reading a book about it and in future I will improve the article with more information not only historical... Anyway again thank you for what you already did--1felco (talk) 16:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surrey Central FL

Would you like to provide any input to this: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Surrey Central/archive1? maclean (talk) 07:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyediting

Hey, I just noticed your edit to Federation of Australia. It's nice to know that you're still editing! I'm the visually impaired user who messaged you over six years ago ... how time flies! I've just copyedited your user page; hope you don't mind. Graham87 16:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TTC Toronto Rocket and H4

Hi there, I updated the TTC's Toronto Rocket page, because the entire H-4 series cars are retired from revenue service after 30-40 years of revenue service on January 27, 2012, the remaining cars in the H-series fleet would be the H-5 and H-6 subway cars. 99.234.119.253 (talk) 21:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Assembly"

It may be helpful to note that during the run on writings articles on the Baha'i Faith in various countries I received some criticism that I *always* referred to their full names - National Spiritual Assembly - so I was encouraged to vary the usage as long as it was meaningful. Just thought I'd comment so you see where the usage comes from. Smkolins (talk) 01:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MSU Interview

Dear Ground Zero,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, were it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:

Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 01:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CPC

You are a regular contributor at Conservative Party of Canada, so I seek a third opinion at Talk:Conservative Party of Canada#Woodworth's abortion private members bill. The basic issue is whether the fact a private members bill concerning abortion will be debated is sufficiently significant to be discussed under the section dealing with the party's position on abortion. -Rrius (talk) 01:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

...for your contribution to Anne Toth. Ottawahitech (talk) 04:12, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Tube

Thanks for cleaning up The Tube on London Underground do you have any tips for inproving My Work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexpotter1996 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Ontario elections/CoR

A tag has been placed on Template:Ontario elections/CoR requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 17:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for help

Hi, Ground Zero. would you please help improve the article List of Renminbi exchange ratess to meet Wikipedia's quality standards, there must be lots of faults , and if you can read Chinese, we can improve more on it, thanks. Cncs (talk) 01:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 26

Hi. When you recently edited Africa Center for Strategic Studies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John F. Kelly (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help

Hello Groundzero,

Thanks for your insights into editing for Charles T. Hinde's Wikipedia page. I am really wanting to make this article qualify for "good article" status and I was wondering if you could help me or if you had any recommendations. Anything would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Lawman4312 (talk) 02:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice and pages links

Hello Groundzero,

Thank you for the links to the articles. I will continuously review them and hopefully I will not make the same mistakes as before. Do you know anyone in Wikipedia who would be interested in helping me prepare Charles T. Hinde ready for "good article" or "featured article" status? I have tried to add information to the article, but since I am relatively new to Wikipedia I think I need help to achieve this goal.

Once again thank you and if you see any problems with my postings please tell me.

Thanks again, Lawman4312 (talk) 03:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

List of members of the Hellenic Parliament, May–June 2012

Greetings Ground Zero. Why are you using piped links for PASOK, KKE and Syriza while the abbreviations directly lead to the correct articles? Seems a bit like a waste of space to me. Cheers. – Kosm1 fent 10:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:ACRONYM, acronyms should be spelled out the first time they are used so that a reader unfamiliar with the subject doesn't have to click through to understand what the text is about. This may not be practical for a list article, but pipelinking the acronym allows the reader to hover over he acronym and learn its meaning, instead of having to click through. Why are you concerned about wasting space? Spelling out acronyms in pipelinks doesn't take up any significant space, and there is no shortage of space in Wikipedia. Regards, Ground Zero | t 19:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I understand. Cheers. – Kosm1 fent 19:22, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Raheem Kassam

As a contributor to this article, you may be interested to know I have nominated it for deletion. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raheem Kassam. Robofish (talk) 16:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Acronyms

Please keep acronyms in the names Polish political paries (ZSL, SD, etc.). That's how they're being described in books:

If historians do it, in order to best identify them in English, so can we. Thanks in advance. Poeticbent talk 02:16, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:ACRONYM, and most style guides, acronyms should be spelled out the first time they are used. The acronyms of Polish political parties won't mean anything to most English readers, other than those already familiar with Polish politics. We are writing for a wider audience - not just those who already know this stuff. Generally, one doesn't define an acronym unless it is being used again, but at your request, I will include the acronym along with the long form name from now on. Regards, Ground Zero | t 02:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An appreciation

Thanks for improving those articles from "List of Singapore MRT stations". I appreciate your dedication and effort you put in. Pardon me for my earlier edits which I thought it was vandalism. Thanks again. 04:03, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you.

Thank you for the edit on Kallmann syndrome, I was beginning to wonder myself that I was adding too many of the same links each time I updated the page. I would like to try to get the page up to a high standard both for patients and for medical professionals looking for information on this rare condition.

Any suggestions on how to make the article better would be appreciated. Neilsmith38 (talk) 19:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

July 2012 Study of authors of health-related Wikipedia pages

Dear Author/Ground Zero

My name is Nuša Farič and I am a Health Psychology MSc student at the University College London (UCL). I am currently running a quantitative study entitled Who edits health-related Wikipedia pages and Why? I am interested in the editorial experience of people who edit health-related Wikipedia pages. I am interested to learn more about the authors of health-related pages on Wikipedia and what motivations they have for doing so. I am currently contacting the authors of randomly selected articles and I noticed that someone at this address edited an article on Arthrography. I would like to ask you a few questions about you and your experience of editing the above mentioned article and or other health-related articles. If you would like more information about the project, please visit my user page (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Hydra_Rain) and if interested, please reply via my talk page or e-mail me on nusa.faric.11@ucl.ac.uk. Also, others interested in the study may contact me! If I do not hear back from you I will not contact this account again. Thank you very much in advance. Hydra Rain (talk) 16:39, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Law of value

Since economics is obviously outside your field of expertise, can you please keep your mitts well away from the law of value article and related articles? Thanks! User:Jurriaan 29 July 2012 20:38 (UTC)

I have replied to this offensive post on the user's talk page. Ground Zero | t 23:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That was offensive and wrong

Your comment here is offensive and wrong in so many ways:

Don't tell another editor to "keep your mitts well away from the law of value article and related articles" --Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia anyone can edit". You don't own any articles, and you don't control other users. Pelease review WP:OWN. You can try to tell other people not to edit, but if they are editing in accordance with Wikipedia policies and style, I think you'll find it won't work.
Don't post on someone else's user page. Post on their talk page.
Don't assume anything about someone else's area of expertise -- your assumptions are probably going to be wrong. In any event, my edits have been primarily to fix links, correct stylistic errors, and to remove think that clearly violate obvious Wikipedia's policy on maintaining a neural point of view. In this case, my edits were to remove editorializing, which WP:EDITORIAL tells us to avoid: "The use of adverbs such as notably and interestingly, and phrases such as it should be noted, to highlight something as particularly significant or certain without attributing that opinion should usually be avoided to maintain an impartial tone." I haven't given this article a full review for WP:NPOV, but I suspect that there will be a number of edits necessary to bring the article in line with Wikipedia policy when I do so.
You have not identified any particular edits that I made with which you disagree. You just don't seem to like other people editing where you're editing. If you write a blog or set up your own web page, then you will have complete control over content, but you won't here.

I recommend that you review Wikipedia:Civility are reconsider how your approached this situation. Ground Zero | t 23:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You arrogantly deleted the word "current" from the definition of the concept, as a "linguistic redundancy" even although I, as an authority on this topic, specifically put it in there for clarity's sake. Then you jabber-blabber like a dickhead about "the correct way of behaving". Start with yourself, my friend! Specifically what is meant in Marx's text by the proportionality of value and "average socially necesary labour" is the CURRENTLY "average socially necessary labour". This subtlety has played a huge role in Marxist discussions in the 20th century, since, according to the Ricardian-type of interpretation, "average socially necessary labour" is the EMBODIED labour, comprising the direct and indirect labour actually performed to make a given commodity. As I indicated in a footnote and in the text, this Ricardian interpretation of Marx is actually wrong; Marx means specifically the current reproduction cost or current replacement cost of the commodity. For Marx, value is a relationship, and in that relationship, time is a variable. If you understood this topic econometrically, you would know what the significance is, but you don't. Perhaps, in the case of some consumer goods with a very short production-time, the issue does not have so much quantitative significance, but if we are talking about physical assets which depreciate across, say, 20 years, then, as any economist would know, the issue becomes highly significant, since the Marxian value of an asset may then eventually bear no relationship to the historic cost of the asset. Again, in contemporary Marxian scholarship by economists, there is an ongoing discussion about "the valuation of fixed capital". You show by your deletion that you are not aware of it. That is why I told you: keep your mitts out of things you don't understand! User:Jurriaan 30 July 2012 2:07 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying what your objection is to my edits. I was confused because I have made a number of edits. I now understand which of my edits causes a problem for you.

You could have identified this objection on the article’s talk page and added those words back in, and that probably would have been the end of it. Instead, you told me not to edit this and similar articles anymore.

Of course, you have no authority to tell anyone not to edit an article, and you have no ability to stop someone from editing an article. You cannot turn off my internet access, and because I have not violated any Wikipedia policies or community norms, you will have no hope of getting administrative action taken against me, e.g., blocking me from editing, or locking the article. As an administrator, I am pretty familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines and do my best to operate within them. I am confident that I have not stepped over the line here. I am wondering what you are going to do if I don’t do what you tell me to do.

Can I clarify that you do not object to me fixing typographical and formatting errors in the article? What about indicating where clarification is required? What about spelling out acronyms per WP:ACRONYM (specifically, FDIC, which would be unfamiliar to many non-American readers)? What about removing editorializing per WP:EDITORIAL? In trying in vain to ban me from this article, you seem to be saying that you do not want me making any of these corrections or improvements.

The real issue seems to be that you do not want me editing your work. Please review the comment that appears under the “Save page” button that you must hit in ordet to submit any edits: “If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here.”

I have considered your comments above, and would like you to re-consider what you have written in the context of Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines:

"You arrogantly deleted the word "current" from the definition of the concept, as a "linguistic redundancy"...."

Please take a look at WP:BOLD, which says, in part, “The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold when updating the encyclopedia.… Wikipedia not only allows you to add, revise, and edit articles: it wants you to do it. This does require some amount of politeness, but it works…. Of course, others here will edit what you write. Do not take it personally! They, like all of us, just wish to make Wikipedia as good an encyclopedia as it can possibly be.” My edits were not arrogant, they were just edits intended to improve the article. You can disagree with whether they did improve the article, but you should always assume good faith on the part of another editor.

"...even although I, as an authority on this topic, specifically put it in there for clarity's sake."

Wikipedia:Authority says, in part, “…. editors are free to accept, reject, invoke, or verify any credentials as they see fit, but there is no official requirement for any other editors to treat credentials in the same manner. Any information about credentials displayed on user pages is by its author only, as Wikipedia does not have procedures for verifying them.”

You assert that you are an authority on the subject, and I am not saying that you aren’t, but I have no way to knowing that you are. On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. More importantly, you cannot expect other editors to look up who wrote a particular word or phrase in trying to determine whether or not they are going to edit it. This seems to come back to you not wanting other people to edit your work, or seeming to think that you own the article. Again, please take a look at WP:OWN.

"Then you jabber-blabber like a dickhead about "the correct way of behaving"."

First of all, name-calling? Really? Is that necessary? It also violates Wikipedia policy, but more than that, why would you resort to name-calling? Interestingly, there is a Wikimedia essay on calling people a dick here. It says, in part, “Implicitly or explicitly calling people dicks is a dick-move.”

"If you understood this topic econometrically, you would know what the significance is, but you don't."

This is an article about economic theory – there isn’t any econometric analysis in this article.

I am willing to accept your re-addition of those words because you advance a cogent argument for doing so. That is where is should end. I made a change, you disagree with it and explain why and change it back. We move on. There is no justification for making an unforceable demand that I refrain from editing this and similar article, or for name-calling, but I've already covered that.

As long as you are going to edit Wikipedia articles, you are going to have to accept that:

others will edit your work,
you don’t own Wikipedia articles no matter how much you have contributed to them,
you won’t always agree with their edits and are entitled to make an argument for undoing them,
you are going to be ignored when you try to tell people not to edit articles,
the best way to contribute to Wikipedia is to understand and accept its policies and norms of behaviour. I have cited a number of them here that will help you contribute to Wikipedia more constructively, and get along better with other editors.

Rude, aggressive behaviour can lead to being blocked from editing. Ground Zero | t 21:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to people editing or improving any wiki article I started, or any other article, and I have never said anything different. I am grateful if people can correct errors or faults. I am well aware of the philosophy of wikipedia. My concern is rather that editors who have no real knowledge about the topic start chopping into articles, so that they are left worse than they were before. Take a look at the Commodity fetishism article, for example, it is now a mess. Why is it a mess? Because people who don't really have good editing skills and no real knowledge of the topic, take it upon themselves to prettify the text with their own innovations, as a result of which the text becomes a nonsense. In that case, not only is the contribution of others not respected, but most of the previous effort is wasted. I like to respect all contributors, but I cannot have respect for editors who irresponsibly start to alter the content of articles without really knowing what they are doing. I find it offensive. It's as simple as that. My experience with many wikipedia editors is that whereas they appeal to norms and procedures, they simply do not honour these themselves! My own policy is to interfere as little as possible in the articles of others, except to make additions where appropriate, or occasionally to correct something that is plainly wrong. I've mainly concentrated on improving articles I wrote myself or wrote a large chunk of. I edit only those bits I have knowledge about, or experience with. I suppose you are right, no one can prevent crazy edits in wikipedia, but I will surely protest and get angry, if the articles do not get better, but get worse, or nonsensical, because of the edits. User: Jurriaan 31 July 2012 0:17 (UTC)

Do you object to any of the other edits that I have made to the article? Can you tell me which, if any, of Wikipedia's norms, procedures or policies I have not honoured? I have not edited Commodity fetishism, so I cannot address the edits that have been made there.

I am surprised that you seem to lump my two deletions of the word "currently", amongst my other edits to the article, in with as "chopping into articles", "prettify the text with their own innovations", "the text becomes nonsense", disrespect for the contributions of other editors, previous effort being wasted, or "crazy edits".

You are welcome to contribute to Wikipedia following your "own policy" as long as you respect Wikipedia policies, even if you disagree with them. If you don't, you will find yourself on the losing end of a lot of unnecessary conflicts with other editors, like this argument.

I think that editing Wikipedia will be very stressful for you if you allow yourself to get so angry over minor good faith edits. Ground Zero | t 23:32, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to play Yankee cop in wikipedia, lecturing people on what they may or may not do, that's up to you. I am not going to listen to it. If however you start to destroy my articles by rewriting them into crappy nonsense, I am going to revert your edits, and I am going to keep doing it until you fuck off. User: Jurriaan 31 July 2012 15:45 (UTC)

I don't know what a "Yankee cop" is, but I am neither a Yankee nor a cop. I am a Wikipedia administrator, and I am telling you how people are expected to treat each other in Wikipedia, according to rules the Wikipedia community has created for itself. I am telling you this for your own benefit so that you can contribute here constructively, instead of getting into fights with people that can lead to you being blocked from editing.

I made a bunch of valid edits to the article, and one with which you disagreed (the deletion of two instances of "currently"). You have responded with obscenity, name-calling, an attempt to exert authority that you don't have and can't enforce, and wildly inaccurate accusations about "your article" (for God's sake, read WP:OWN) being "destroyed". If you revert valid edits, you can be blocked from editing. If you disagree with another editor's edits, you can revert them if you explain why on the article's talk page, otherwise you could be blocked from editing. Resorting to name-calling and obscenity is not acceptable in Wikipedia, and is not justified in adult conversation. If you can't accept other people editing contributions you've made to Wikipedia, you don't belong here. Ground Zero | t 07:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC

You certainly know how to annoy people, don't you! I agree you made some valid minor edits, I have never said otherwise, but you also removed a qualifier for "linguistic" reasons which happens to be crucial to the theory, thereby revealing that you have no real knowledge of the subjectmatter. This is rather embarrassing and therefore you try to make out the issue is about something else, whereupon you start to accuse me of this and that. Despite your rants and lectures, however, I am not trying to "assert an authority" which I don't have at all. I am merely telling you and your pals to BUTT OUT OF DOING CONTENT EDITS IN WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES ON TOPICS WHICH YOU ARE NOT EXPERIENCED WITH. I hope you understand what I mean here. If you don't understand it, you shouldn't even be a wikipedia administrator. I know very well that nobody "owns" a wikipedia article, and that anyone can edit it. I SAID SO ALREADY. But if I have spent a long time writing an original article, I am quite justified in referring to it on my talk page for practical purposes as "my article" because I WROTE THE DAMN THING. And I am going to be very angry if some twerp who doesn't know what's what, starts to ruin the article, with all sorts of edits which mean that the article gets WORSE, not BETTER. Because in that case all the work I have put into it has been in vain, and readers get frustrated too. Naturally, I am going to watch what happens to the articles, to ensure that they don't become crap because dabblers ruin the text! Instead of you rants, you should be grateful that I am willing to do this, that I have this concern for quality in the articles! If I get rude with you and some other people in wikiland, it is because you people do content edits in articles so that they get WORSE, thereby disrespecting previous editors who put in time to produce a quality text. That is not to say that you don't also do GOOD editing work on other pages - I do not deny that. You have probably improved many pages, including ones that I have worked on. I am also rude deliberately, to shake you up: hey, do you know what you are doing here, and what effect it has on others? Before you start talking about proceduralities to justify yourself, use your brain when doing content edits! User: Jurriaan 3 August 2012 22:54 (UTC)

Your last post to me

With regard to your last post to me which you have deleted, I assure you that my aim here is to help you understand how to edit in Wikipedia and avoid being blocked from editing, so I have identified the policies and rules that you are violating and provided links so you don’t have to take my word for it and so you can learn more.

As I have noted, your behaviour violates Wikipedia’s rules. These rules have been established by the Wikipedia community to help people edit in constructive and collaborative manner. Without them, Wikipedia would not work.

I have taken a look at your previous disputes with other editors, and I see now that this is not an isolated incident, but a pattern of behaviour.

Wikipedia aims to be very forgiving, and to give people a lot of chances to change their behaviour before administrative action is taken against them. As you are making it clear that you are not interested in conforming to Wikipedia’s rules, you must understand that if you continue to behave in this way, you can be blocked by me or another administrator without further warning. There are, of course, procedures for appealing administrative blocks.

I invite you to reconsider your approach to thiis discussion. You have criticized me as being annoying, and then proudly declare that you are being deliberately rude. You complained of my “rants”, but you have resorted repeatedly to obscenity, name-calling, and typing all in caps. For someone who makes a big deal of your academic background, you are very quick to resort to the sort of discourse one would expect to find in the loading dock rather than in the halls of the graduate school.

It comes back to your repeated demand that I not edit “your” articles. Because I have not violated any Wikipedia policies of which I am aware, you have no way of enforcing your demand. I cannot be blocked for drawing your attention to Wikipedia policies. You can be blocked for violating them.

I deleted two words, as is my prerogative under WP:BOLD, you restored them (and eventually explained why) as is your prerogative, and I decided to leave it at that. This is part of the normal ebb and flow of Wikipedia. If you can’t accept that, you are never going to be happy here. It is something that you cannot change no matter how much you insult people, no matter what rude words you use, and no matter what pointless demands you make.

Wikipedia is a better place if people aren’t rude to each other, don’t engage in name-calling, and don’t shout at each other. For that matter, the world is a better place if people don’t do these things, but Wikipedians can’t change the world. Wikipedians can set rules of engagement for editing in Wikipedia, and can block from editing those who don’t abide by them.

The purpose of my posts to you have not been about “being embarrassed” or wanting to annoy you, or any other sinister motive that you ascribe to me WP:Assume good faith), but as I said, to help you avoid being blocked by changing how you interact with other editors. Regards, Ground Zero | t 20:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]