1074:. A total ordering of even countably infinitely many things would be isomorphic to the integers and therefore, obviously, a quantification could be fit to it. (McCulloch explicitly notes that continuity (uncountable infinitude) implies the possibility of fitting a quantification. I don't remember off the top of my head what he says about countable infinitude. But I presume that you really just care about the mathematical properties, rather than about whether McCulloch noted them.)
2322:
hadn't become committed to the idea that the other side were cranks before he or she had developed an understanding from sources from that other side. And, because the intellectual demands of a proper cross-school critical appraisal are different from those required to succeed in ordinary academic pursuits, doctorates or professorships don't imply an ability to ably critique the other side, even if the critic proceeds in good faith. —
946:. As it stands, though, I'm not completely convinced by your argument that mainstream analysis is somehow less-than-ordinal. I assume you're referring to the "intrinsically ordinal" property, that it's possible to have preferences which defy any cardinal numbering, as opposed to the "ordinal" which we're used to that preferences can be numbered, but those numbers are only meaningful up to a monotonic transformation.
1561:. But you should question at least part of your hypothesis, based upon whose mental model of the other seems to work, and whose does not. You might make that judgment not by attempting to reconstruct each mental model and then judging it against your own models, but by seeing which modeler seemed to have trouble preparing for the other, and which did not. —
1388:
44:
2357:
1936:
What difference does it make whether it's a policy or guideline? Who cares. But yes, since you go against an established "guideline" it does seems to be an arbitrary preference on your part. We have a guideline, a report where it has been established that removing red links is hurting
Knowledge (XXG)
953:
of cardinality in mainstream thought? Here's two things I'm left wondering (which maybe I'll resolve if/when I give it enough thought, just mulling here). First, is the difference purely due to lumpiness? McCulloch does say that if infinitesimal quantities are allowed, then cardinality happens in the
638:
The AfD is from 2007. The article was recreated in 2008, apparently by someone without knowledge of the AfD and never deleted as a recreation of deleted content. Skomorokh restored the history behind the new article, an uncontroversial practice. Given the lapse of time and the current state of the
494:
spelling in many dictionaries, and in any event is not wrong. My principal concern with “whereïn” was that you changed it to “where” (rather than to “wherein”), but the function of a d1æresis in
English (as in many languages) is to indicate that there is no diphthong. Hyphens serve to indicate that
2305:
I was certainly aware than
Lawrencekhoo was not a fan of Austrian economics, but I was seeking a counter-view of Austrian economics (besides Krugman's "explanations" which were certainly inadequate). However, it seems that from your userboxes that we share similar economic views. But as you can see,
1194:
I really want to dig at this, not for the sake of WP, but for my own curiosity. It'll have to wait, however. It does bug me that (for instance in Table 4) the "intrinsically ordinal" preferences over sets of wants gives rise to "essentially cardinal" preferences over commodity bundles (as in Table 6
587:
after you'd already commented - thought I'd be quick enough to sneak those two in before anyone saw the discussion, but it looks like you were quick and on the ball that night! I apologise if it seemed to give the impression that I was trying to make it look like you'd !voted on those articles when
1529:
Hello--There are various issues with the dispute and mediation, but one which is striking to me is the trouble between you and LK. From my perspective, you are both good-faith editors, and likely have not-too-different goals, but with incompatible communication styles and built-up distrust. I don't
1289:
Okay. I'm not a delegate of the US gov't, and you won't get a Soviet compromise out of me. Mediation would establish an orderly process, in which the difference between actual policy and what you assert to be policy will be plainly exhibited. If you persisted after that, then (as I remarked) the
1256:
I am ready to join mediation, but to make sure that it works, we must all be prepared to be flexible in our positions. I just want to tell you that I'm prepared to forget our past disputes, and enter the process with an open mind. Also, in case it wasn't obvious, the statement I made about ignoring
810:
I don't know of a way of getting to the material of value from the
Austrian School without wading through a lot that is quite problematic for one reason or another. At one point, I did some of that wading; but now-a-days I rarely seek-out Austrian School stuff as such, expecting that the marginal
768:
Likewise, I'm ambivalent about math-rather, I think math shouldn't be a bone of contention. Most economists agree math is vital to some good economics, but can also lead people astray when they concentrate too much on the math. I don't think that's a point of useful argument, the place to argue is
1225:
Yeah, I thought that the inquiry was more for reasons separate from
Knowledge (XXG). If, after you've gone over the article, you have abiding questions, feel free to raise them with me, though I don't carry the details of that article in my head, and might have to read parts of it again myself.
2139:
amounts to the combination of a declaration that the mission (and hence the supreme rule) of
Knowledge (XXG) is to produce the best attainable encyclopedia, with a claim that the imposition of some lesser rule would interfere with that mission. It a better world, one could say that without ever
1330:
Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is
489:
First principle here: Don't correct that which is not wrong. “Aristoteles” is increasingly used by
English-language classics texts (exactly because it is relatively accurate as a transliteration). The grave accent in English may be uncommon, but is a correct way of indicating that an otherwise
2321:
There's a lot of mutual incomprehension between the mainstream and the members of the
Austrian School. Combine that with the hostility of many members on each side, and the chances of getting a useful critique from one of the other are very poor. In either case, you'd want to find someone who
726:
It was a joke, of course, but what would be wrong in creating that type of tag to put on the bottom of a page? It's not really vandalism, nor is it uncivil; it would be a way to comment on articles that shouldn't have been written in the first place. Still, I'd probably get treated by an
2000:
Yes, but I don't agree it makes it harder to read. That's just your opinion and contrary to community consensus. In fact, I think removing the red links is hurting
Knowledge (XXG). One illogical but true aspect of IAR is whenever you have to cite IAR, it already doesn't fall under IAR.
1275:
There was a gathering of the representatives from the US an from the USSR. On the first day, the Soviet delegates moved that the wives of the
Americans should be given to the Russians for their pleasure. The Americans stormed-out. The next day, the Soviet delegates proposed that
1856:
thing that it does. The article would be awash in redlinks if we wikified each film (as some have sought to do), and that makes it harder for the non-editing user. People reäct to red as a special color of danger, need to be alert, &c, and the mind is repeated brought to a
1346:
If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an
519:
I am glad to see that there is someone else who knows about dieresis, hyphens and accents (grave or circumflex), but I still do not agree with some of your spelling choices (and I'd like very much to see a dictionary adopting them). However, I shall not correct them again.
1937:
but you still insist on removing them. With serving the reader we should remove a bunch of pointless templates on article space not removing red links. I don't think readers react at all badly to this and it even has a plus, it might encourage them to become editors.
1557:, each of us would reject your hypothesis; the only means of resolution would be for one or both to have some flash of enlightenment. And Mediation is supposed to deal with content issues, not with incompatible communication styles nor with built-up distrust
2213:
882:
Thanks, that's a finite number of pointers I can follow. A good project sometime might be to write up a guide to the Austrian analytical toolset without all the baggage. Well beyond me for the time being, brand new crisis today. Oof!. Anyway, thanks!
772:
I want economic analysis, not anarcho-capitalism. Lots of economic analysis leads to results of efficiency for free markets, and that's dandy, but when I see Austrian economics it's often hard to tell that "free markets good" is a result and not an
957:
O yeah, and I don't see what this has to do with a total ordering--making the ordering economically sensible will put extra restrictions on it of some kind, I'm not sure that being non-intrinsically ordinal is a particularly important restriction.
818:
Von Mises really represents a sub-school of the Austrian School (and Rothbard a sub-school of that sub-school). But, because v Mises was convinced that he'd got everything right, he thought it quite appropriate to simply treat his conclusions as
1600:
There are editors who believe that we should have guidelines, editors who believe that we should not have guidelines, and editors who believe that we should have guidelines only if there is meaningful assurance that the guidelines will not be a
1466:
Apologies for this, but I forgot to add the caveat on statement length that they should be under 250 words or less. Can you make sure your statements conforms to this? Sorry again, I was meant to say it but I was in a rush when I was posting.
544:
In the case of one of these, “rôle”, some dictionary citations were brought out by an editor during one discussion. But, for some of the others, looking for a dictionary citation is like looking for a dictionary citation with particular
495:
the hyphenated words are more closely associated one with the other than with the words that surround them. As to Cesare Beccaria, I reproduced the form used by the source (Pribram); given how wikification works, unless this form is
961:
It's a neat paper, just trying to figure out how it really matters. (Plus, as someone who's pretty sure my preferences are neither complete nor transitive, I have a love-hate relationship with this kind of foundational theory.)
1460:
461:? It is the transliteration from Greek, not the English form of the name. And "markèd" with an accent? And I agree that "rôle" is more etimologically correct than "role", but the latter seems to be the more ususal form (see
2061:
You think my interpretation if IAR is illogical? (Which is your opinion and I can't help that) But because of that a discussion with me can not be rational? (Which is ridiculous). I suggest you read some of the archives at
2033:
just my position. In fact, I came to the recognition that the over-abundance of redlinks in that article was a problem after another editor expressed concern, and I gave it some thought. Further, the effect of
1404:
1324:
1056:
to the fact that the weak quantification of mainstream economics is not purely ordinal, then he or she still has (as far as I know) a viable (if unproven) proposition. But let's locate the errors and tenability
410:
When last I looked, some else had already reverted the change. As for my asking some third party to involve him- or herself, I don't interact on Knowledge (XXG) with anyone whom I know to have such interests.
2114:
Yes, I asserted that and I agree with it. But it still is illogical in a way that whenever you have to invoke IAR you should not to cite it. But it's not just my opinion, see Deskana's comment for instance at
1530:
know that's correct, that's just what it looks like from here. Given that, and that you two were the prime drivers of the debate, it's possible a mediation consisting of just you two would be valuable?
464:). I'd also be glad to understand your use of the dieresis in "whereïn" and the hyphen in "work-out" used as a verb. Last thing, as an Italian I can assure you that the preferred form of the name of
1895:, removing red links is hurting Knowledge (XXG). I also remove red links quite often, but always when the article really should not be created, which is not the case with this filmography list.
1619:; there are editors who reject this claim about policy. There is at least one editor who believes that it should be accepted that, in economics, academic and peer-reviewed publications are the
858:) is an example of an economist well-informed both by the Austrian School and by the mainstream. He's unafraid to present heresy, as in “Misintermediation and Macroeconomic Fluctuations”, in
1398:
954:
Austrian framework as well. Second, is it because we're looking at orderings of different sets? The Austrians are ordering (sets of wants) vs. the orthodox ordering of (consumption bundles).
1965:
in opposing a guideline. (One couldn't even leap to that conclusion from my opposing a policy, though policy would still trump such opposition, whereäs a guideline does not.) I've stated
747:
I'm curious if there's good reading on Austrian economics for non-Austrians. If there's not, and Austrian econ is really valuable, then it seems like that's a gap which should be filled.
1887:
Well, feel free to ask for a different colour in the village pump. Meanwhile, besides your preference over the colour, there is no good reason to remove these links. Please read
2345:
1892:
750:
There's several things about presentation of Austrianism which turn me off-any of which could be due to my ignorance because my being turned-off has left me quite ignorant.
553:
to the spelling of the word. Finding an appearance of the use in literature provides a rather quick-and-dirty proof of legitimacy, but the real proof is simply in finding a
2269:
and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
2180:
It injects an intrinsic degree of irrationality into your discussion. Whether it discussion hopeless may be another matter, but it would certainly be less promising. —
1348:
1164:
1137:
916:
I've reformulated the proposed guidelines based on your and other's comments. I would appreciate it if you could have a look and further comment there. Thankyou, --
1049:
1026:
2116:
784:(As an aside, in my thoroughly mainstream applied-micro grad school, "The Use of Knowledge in Society" was one of the first pieces of required reading.)
1835:
Yes, the rate is very slow, but it is ongoing. What is the purpose of removing them? It only makes it harder for the articles to be created. See also
584:
1331:
designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at
1336:
48:
841:. It is especially important to bear in mind that his epistemology (whatever one may make of it) is not intrinsic to the school; some of his
2273:
2266:
1453:
1507:
would want to argue against any demonstration that he were fundamentally mistaken, and that his counter-argument would be flawed, &c. —
1912:
807:
Yeah, you've touched upon some real problems. A large part of them result from how Rothbard and his fans represent his particular work.
2014:
1394:
2349:
2168:
Well, I don't reject it and neither do many other editors. Does that make a discussion with me or them automatically not rational?
1195:& Figure 2). I might just be missing the point, but maybe I'll catch it another time. Thanks for pointing out the neat paper.
1871:
editor. If a different color had been chosen for links to unfound articles, then I'd probably be in strong agreement with you. —
1447:
1443:
1332:
1320:
1358:
Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.
848:
If you'd like to see an example of what I consider to be the sort of work that “Austrians” should do, then look at McCulloch's
711:
2082:
were “illogical but true”. Whether you misspoke or not, you need to take ownership of what you said, and not waste my time. —
1340:
815:
is worth following because I've never followed it; certainly my own work hasn't recently led me to seek-out any article in it.
557:
the underlying rules for their use, which finding is feasible in each of these cases. But you seem to know those rules. :-/ —
1108:
assumption of each approach; if the relevant set is not totally ordered, then it isn't appropriate to speak or write even of
356:
257:
245:
233:
221:
209:
197:
185:
173:
2279:
1626:
even if this claim is not supported by policy; there is at least one editor who doubts the proposition has any real defense.
1543:
1208:
975:
896:
797:
161:
149:
137:
125:
113:
101:
89:
77:
65:
1974:
1852:
I agree that it does make it somewhat harder for the articles to be creäted, but (slightly or otherwise), that's not the
599:
I did not think that you were attempting to deceive the closer. I am going to explicitly state that at the discussion. —
778:
292:
This editor has too many irons in the fire, and may be suddenly inactive on Knowledge (XXG) for indeterminate intervals.
1488:
It's acceptable in this instance... I'm OK with an indent or two, but not a whole discussion inside another's section.
338:. The reason that I keep putting “notability” in quotation marks is that Knowledge (XXG) has its own notion thereof. —
762:
490:
unpronounced syllable will be pronounced without stress. The spelling “rôle” may be more unusual, but it remains the
465:
2135:; it's an aspect of someone's interpretation of it, which interpretation you ought to reject. Ultimately, invoking
1721:
Yes. I was self-reverting even as you did that. I had not seen that the discussion had been closed and archived. —
993:
than purely ordinal. From the perspective of logic/math, an ordering to which a quantification may be applied is a
643:
prepared to re-delete under the authority of the AfD, but have no opinion about listing the article again to see if
1327:
and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.
707:
2291:
1701:
1352:
324:
1980:
A device that makes articles harder to read can be an effective way of recruiting editors, but it is not an
1816:
1758:
If you did it in a way that made it very clear that you were quoting, then sure. A very useful template is
1748:
1469:
1417:
1907:
This isn't about an arbitrary preference on my part; it's about serving the reader. And you're not citing
2311:
2231:
1713:
1366:
1262:
1080:
921:
845:
propositions simply need to be regarded as axiomata (and the rest then as deductions from those axiomata).
823:
Austrian School results. What I'd really like to see is a treatment that doesn't make such a presumption.
910:
362:
Hey. I don't know if it is one of your intrests, but I wanted a quick answer. What do you think of that:
320:
2379:
TNX, but my participation was limited to supporting a remark by another editor who noted that the term “
1079:
The nature of the sets isn't important to the mathematics here. (McCulloch grabbed the math itself from
2063:
2013:
Either way it's obvious we will never agree and it's likely you will keep reverting I posted a comment
1888:
1836:
2287:
939:
652:
527:
479:
1984:
means. We might similarly do this with a 'bot that effected errors of grammar, spelling, and use. —
2389:
2328:
2249:
2186:
2158:
2088:
2051:
1990:
1926:
1877:
1795:
1727:
1680:
1567:
1513:
1493:
1299:
1280:
the wives of American delegates be given to them for their pleasure. Seeing that the Soviets were
1236:
1180:
868:
781:. But it would be awfully nice if there were the equivalent of a serious textbook. Any such luck?
754:
I don't care for "schools of thought" in general, and Austrianism seems to be wrapped up in itself.
732:
690:
668:
605:
563:
505:
432:
417:
401:
386:
370:
344:
17:
2353:
2172:
2123:
2070:
2021:
2005:
1941:
1899:
1843:
1812:
1762:
1744:
1439:
380:
I'm sure that you're right, but I don't need to fight even more wack people on Knowledge (XXG). —
1743:
Would simply mentioning that I'm quoting a message be sufficient to include it on my talk page?
2307:
2228:
1706:
1539:
1504:
1362:
1258:
1204:
971:
917:
892:
793:
1230:
is felicitous, especially not the terms “intrinsically ordinal” and “essentially cardinal”. —
396:
Ooo... But can you ask someone here to do it? I don't want to get invovl with that either. --
335:
2369:
949:
I mean, it appears to be true, but how does it matter, and how does it relate to Austrians'
2265:
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at
2141:
2136:
2132:
2079:
2042:
644:
2380:
1142:
1115:
943:
862:
8 (1981), which built a different business cycle theory from Austrian School components. —
648:
521:
473:
365:? I think the nominees are important, and that someone here should to reconstruct that. --
319:
Annie Jr. has notability in that it is a separate production written for young performers.
1650:; so do I. But there are editors who think that a different answer from each of mine is
1638:
1623:
1616:
554:
2384:
2323:
2244:
2181:
2153:
2083:
2046:
1985:
1921:
1872:
1790:
1722:
1675:
1588:
1583:
What is there even to mediate about? I'm not sure this is a good case for mediation.
1562:
1508:
1489:
1323:(MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at
1294:
1231:
1175:
863:
835:
728:
685:
681:
663:
620:
600:
589:
558:
500:
469:
428:
412:
397:
381:
366:
339:
2394:
2383:” was being mis-applied, and I did not much look into the various other issues here. —
2373:
2333:
2315:
2295:
2254:
2234:
2191:
2175:
2163:
2126:
2093:
2073:
2056:
2024:
2008:
1995:
1944:
1931:
1902:
1882:
1846:
1820:
1800:
1752:
1732:
1715:
1685:
1633:
to be given different views, academic and peer-reviewed publications should count for
1592:
1572:
1547:
1518:
1497:
1478:
1426:
1370:
1304:
1266:
1241:
1212:
1185:
1034:
1011:
979:
925:
900:
873:
801:
736:
715:
695:
673:
656:
623:
610:
592:
568:
531:
510:
483:
436:
422:
405:
391:
374:
349:
328:
2169:
2120:
2067:
2018:
2002:
1938:
1896:
1840:
1612:
supports a claim that, in economics, academic and peer-reviewed publications are the
1602:
1293:
As to the remark about trolls, I didn't read it as suggesting that I were a troll. —
1531:
1339:; further information on Knowledge (XXG)'s policy on resolving disagreements is at
1196:
963:
884:
785:
2038:
is well documented. This is not simply a matter of someone's personal aesthetic.
777:
I suppose I could try to fill this gap in my knowledge by reading stuff from the
462:
2365:
2212:
1961:
about the difference. Nor can one logically arrive at the claim that I'm being
1654:, and there are editors who think that a different answer from each of yours is
1387:
727:
administrator to the (somewhat erotic sounding) "series of escalating blocks".
583:
Hi there, I'd just like to apologise for adding a couple of extra articles into
454:
43:
854:
1858:
1584:
1461:
Knowledge (XXG) talk:Requests for mediation/WikiProject Economics Guidelines
849:
758:
458:
1553:
You're quite correct that we're the two prime drivers of the debate. But,
1335:; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at
1503:
Where would one expect that thread to end naturally? I'm quite sure that
850:“The Austrian Theory of the Marginal Use and of Ordinal Marginal Utility”
769:
case-by-case whether someone's doing good economics or silly math tricks.
1646:
Now, you may think that the answer to each of these questions is pretty
2227:
For the flawless use of logic in defending Knowledge (XXG) principles.
1405:
Knowledge (XXG):Requests for mediation/WikiProject Economics Guidelines
1325:
Knowledge (XXG):Requests for mediation/WikiProject Economics Guidelines
1006:
There's a difference between a proposition that the Austrian School is
305:
Click the “new section” tab or this sentence to start a new discussion.
2306:
the major area of my contributions is Chinese history, not economics.
2117:
Wikipedia_talk:Ignore_all_rules/Archive_17#Valid_application_of_IAR.3F
942:) yet, and certainly not its full implications compared to mainstream
2356:
for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the
1920:
Orphanage can be addressed without making articles harder to read. —
1351:
of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (
1953:
of distinguishing between policies and guidelines, exactly because
1674:
element to the conduct of some or all of the editors in dispute. —
811:
product of any given reading will be low. I couldn't say whether
684:
was linked to the old AfD discussion, rather than to the latest. —
662:
Weird. There is still something screwy here. Maybe it's minor. —
632:
457:
article. Why do you consider "Aristoteles" a correct spelling for
2045:, then continued discussion of it with you cannot be rational. —
1863:
by that color. Our first priority should be serving the reader
2274:
Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration
2340:
Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop
1290:
door to the next stage of dispute resolution would be opened.
938:. So I haven't fully grokked McCulloch's paper (referred to
1893:
Knowledge (XXG):Knowledge (XXG) Signpost/2009-01-31/Orphans
2360:. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.
1973:
in redlinks, and my argument is very much in keeping with
1284:, the Americans joined them in supporting the resolution.
852:, Zeitschrift für Nationalökonomie 37 (1977). McCulloch (
453:
Hi. I see you have reverted some of my corrections in the
1658:. In fact, you and I might each think that the other is
1315:
A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning
1226:
And, for what it's worth, I don't think that McCulloch's
834:
know to a good text-book on the Austrian School would be
38:
1697:
1099:
only persist because they can amount to the same thing.
363:
303:
1052:. If someone wants to claim that the Austrian School
1629:
There are editors who believe that, in assessing the
1145:
1118:
1037:
1014:
2267:
Knowledge (XXG):Requests for arbitration#Skipsievert
765:. I want the idea, and don't much care its pedigree.
619:That's very kind of you, thankyou. Happy editing!
1403:You can find more information on the case subpage,
1158:
1131:
1043:
1020:
706:Well, it happens! Many thanks for the message. --
2041:If you're going to abandon logic in discussing
1780:
1696:Hi. Just wanted to let you know that I removed
1083:by Kraft, Pratt, and Seidenberg.) Really, the
1311:Mediation for WikiProject Economics Guidelines
985:I'm not claiming that the mainstream model is
588:you hadn't; no such impression was intended.
1771:As Stevens said {{Quotation|Moose are cool!}}
1452:If you have questions about this bot, please
8:
1670:, or perhaps to demonstrate that there is a
1666:. So we need a Mediation either to convert
1641:; there are editors who reject this claim.
1382:
1337:Knowledge (XXG):Mediation Committee/Policy
287:
25:
2210:
1150:
1144:
1123:
1117:
1087:ordering for decision theory would be of
1036:
1013:
499:, I don't see much reason to change it. —
1454:contact the Mediation Committee directly
1104:Total ordering of the relevant set is a
549:; the diacrital marks aren't considered
1397:to which you were are a party has been
1054:imputes too much practical significance
989:than ordinal; I am claiming that it is
1811:Got it. I'll make the change. Thanks.
1257:troll baiting wasn't directed at you.
1166:is weakly preferred to the other, the
1081:“Intuitive Probability on Finite Sets”
1070:(“lumpiness”) that matters here, but
7:
680:As it turned-out, the tag placed by
1608:There are editors who believe that
1333:Knowledge (XXG):Mediation Committee
2344:As you participated in the recent
2078:You asserted that something about
1975:fundamental Knowledge (XXG) policy
1341:Knowledge (XXG):Resolving disputes
24:
2280:Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration guide
1969:what my problem is to an article
1662:wrong. Nobody gets to just play
2358:SecurePoll feedback and workshop
2211:
1386:
1317:WikiProject Economics Guidelines
1029:and that the Austrian School is
42:
2363:For the Arbitration Committee,
298:
1379:Request for mediation accepted
1305:05:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
1267:05:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
1242:18:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
1213:17:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
1186:15:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
1031:wrong about the importance of
980:09:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
926:15:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
901:19:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
874:07:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
802:18:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
357:Academy Award for Best Picture
1:
2395:08:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
2374:08:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
860:Journal of Monetary Economics
2334:21:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
2316:15:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
2296:19:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
2255:19:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
2235:11:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
2192:23:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
2176:23:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
2164:22:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
2127:21:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
2094:21:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
2074:21:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
2057:21:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
2025:21:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
2009:20:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
1996:20:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
1945:20:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
1932:20:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
1903:20:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
1883:20:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
1847:19:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
1821:01:48, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
1801:01:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
1753:01:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
1733:19:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
1716:19:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
1686:22:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
1593:21:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
1573:15:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
1548:14:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
1519:16:00, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
1498:15:43, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
1479:15:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
1427:12:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
1414:For the Mediation Committee,
813:Review of Austrian Economics
779:Review of Austrian Economics
41:
2348:election, or in one of two
1776:and this would come out as
1450:to perform case management.
1442:, an automated bot account
1371:07:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
763:history of economic thought
757:Related is that I want the
737:23:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
716:15:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
696:13:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
674:12:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
657:06:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
624:08:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
611:08:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
593:08:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
569:11:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
532:10:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
511:06:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
484:18:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
466:Cesare, Marquis of Beccaria
437:09:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
423:09:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
406:09:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
392:09:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
375:08:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
350:03:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
336:the “notability” guidelines
329:00:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
56:Some messages may be found
2411:
2352:that relate to the use of
1438:This message delivered by
931:McCulloch & mainstream
2217:
1702:List of disbarred lawyers
1698:your post-closure comment
743:Austrian econ for dummies
2131:That's not an aspect of
1837:Knowledge (XXG):Red link
1319:has been filed with the
427:Anyway, thanks a lot! --
258:the seventeenth orc hive
2261:Request for arbitration
1867:reader, not the editor
1831:Donald Duck filmography
1112:utility. (When neither
270:the eighteenth orc hive
222:the fourteenth orc hive
1784:
1525:Alternative mediation?
1272:I've a fable for you:
1160:
1133:
1045:
1022:
246:the sixteenth orc hive
234:the fifteenth orc hive
2221:The Socratic Barnstar
1395:Request for Mediation
1282:willing to compromise
1161:
1159:{\displaystyle X_{n}}
1134:
1132:{\displaystyle X_{m}}
1046:
1023:
708:Fioravante Patrone en
645:consensus has changed
449:Non-standard spelling
186:the eleventh orc hive
2350:requests for comment
2243:Thank you. I try. —
1664:the Obviousness Card
1143:
1116:
1035:
1012:
210:the unlucky orc hive
198:the twelfth orc hive
138:the seventh orc hive
1768:. You could enter
1448:Mediation Committee
1321:Mediation Committee
1097:consumption bundles
1089:states of the world
997:of one to which an
826:None-the-less, the
150:the eighth orc hive
102:the fourth orc hive
78:the second orc hive
18:User talk:SlamDiego
2346:Audit Subcommittee
1911:; you're citing a
1639:“reliable” sources
1624:“reliable” sources
1617:“reliable” sources
1156:
1129:
1041:
1018:
470:it:Cesare Beccaria
267:
255:
243:
231:
219:
207:
195:
183:
174:the tenth orc hive
171:
162:the ninth orc hive
159:
147:
135:
126:the sixth orc hive
123:
114:the fifth orc hive
111:
99:
90:the third orc hive
87:
75:
66:the first orc hive
63:
2240:
2239:
2148:world isn't that
1535:
1436:
1435:
1200:
1044:{\displaystyle X}
1021:{\displaystyle X}
967:
888:
789:
555:“reliable source”
312:
311:
297:
296:
276:
275:
265:
253:
241:
229:
217:
205:
193:
181:
169:
157:
145:
133:
121:
109:
97:
85:
73:
61:
37:
36:
2402:
2392:
2331:
2252:
2215:
2208:
2207:
2189:
2161:
2144:explicitly, but
2091:
2054:
1993:
1929:
1880:
1798:
1779:As Stevens said
1767:
1761:
1730:
1709:
1683:
1570:
1533:
1516:
1475:
1472:
1423:
1420:
1390:
1383:
1302:
1239:
1198:
1183:
1168:marginal utility
1165:
1163:
1162:
1157:
1155:
1154:
1138:
1136:
1135:
1130:
1128:
1127:
1050:
1048:
1047:
1042:
1027:
1025:
1024:
1019:
965:
886:
871:
857:
787:
693:
671:
608:
566:
524:
508:
476:
420:
389:
347:
308:
299:
288:
46:
39:
26:
2410:
2409:
2405:
2404:
2403:
2401:
2400:
2399:
2393:
2388:
2381:approval voting
2342:
2332:
2327:
2303:
2288:The Four Deuces
2263:
2253:
2248:
2206:
2190:
2185:
2162:
2157:
2092:
2087:
2055:
2050:
1994:
1989:
1930:
1925:
1881:
1876:
1833:
1799:
1794:
1782:Moose are cool!
1765:
1759:
1741:
1731:
1726:
1707:
1694:
1684:
1679:
1581:
1571:
1566:
1527:
1517:
1512:
1486:
1473:
1470:
1464:
1457:
1421:
1418:
1381:
1349:active mediator
1313:
1303:
1298:
1254:
1240:
1235:
1184:
1179:
1146:
1141:
1140:
1119:
1114:
1113:
1091:, and ordering
1033:
1032:
1010:
1009:
1001:may be applied.
944:consumer theory
933:
914:
872:
867:
853:
830:thing of which
745:
723:
704:
694:
689:
672:
667:
636:
609:
604:
581:
567:
562:
522:
509:
504:
474:
451:
421:
416:
390:
385:
360:
348:
343:
317:
302:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2408:
2406:
2398:
2397:
2387:
2364:
2362:
2361:
2341:
2338:
2337:
2336:
2326:
2302:
2299:
2284:
2283:
2277:
2262:
2259:
2258:
2257:
2247:
2238:
2237:
2224:
2223:
2218:
2216:
2205:
2202:
2201:
2200:
2199:
2198:
2197:
2196:
2195:
2194:
2184:
2156:
2112:
2111:
2110:
2109:
2108:
2107:
2106:
2105:
2104:
2103:
2102:
2101:
2100:
2099:
2098:
2097:
2096:
2086:
2049:
2039:
2011:
1988:
1978:
1924:
1918:
1875:
1832:
1829:
1828:
1827:
1826:
1825:
1824:
1823:
1804:
1803:
1793:
1787:
1786:
1785:
1774:
1773:
1772:
1740:
1737:
1736:
1735:
1725:
1704:AfD. Cheers, –
1693:
1690:
1689:
1688:
1678:
1644:
1643:
1642:
1637:than do other
1627:
1606:
1580:
1579:Econ Mediation
1577:
1576:
1575:
1565:
1526:
1523:
1522:
1521:
1511:
1485:
1482:
1463:
1458:
1451:
1437:
1434:
1433:
1432:
1431:
1430:
1429:
1408:
1402:
1391:
1380:
1377:
1375:
1355:for details).
1312:
1309:
1308:
1307:
1297:
1291:
1287:
1286:
1285:
1253:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1234:
1218:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1189:
1188:
1178:
1153:
1149:
1126:
1122:
1101:
1100:
1076:
1075:
1063:
1062:
1040:
1017:
1003:
1002:
932:
929:
913:
907:
906:
905:
904:
903:
877:
876:
866:
846:
824:
816:
808:
775:
774:
770:
766:
755:
744:
741:
740:
739:
722:
719:
703:
700:
699:
698:
688:
677:
676:
666:
639:article, I am
635:
630:
629:
628:
627:
626:
614:
613:
603:
580:
577:
576:
575:
574:
573:
572:
571:
561:
537:
536:
535:
534:
514:
513:
503:
450:
447:
446:
445:
444:
443:
442:
441:
440:
439:
415:
384:
359:
354:
353:
352:
342:
334:Please review
321:Trufflesthedog
316:
313:
310:
309:
295:
294:
286:
284:
283:
282:
281:
280:
279:
278:
274:
273:
262:
261:
250:
249:
238:
237:
226:
225:
214:
213:
202:
201:
190:
189:
178:
177:
166:
165:
154:
153:
142:
141:
130:
129:
118:
117:
106:
105:
94:
93:
82:
81:
70:
69:
58:
57:
53:
52:
51:
47:
35:
34:
31:
30:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2407:
2396:
2391:
2386:
2382:
2378:
2377:
2376:
2375:
2371:
2367:
2359:
2355:
2351:
2347:
2339:
2335:
2330:
2325:
2320:
2319:
2318:
2317:
2313:
2309:
2300:
2298:
2297:
2293:
2289:
2281:
2278:
2275:
2272:
2271:
2270:
2268:
2260:
2256:
2251:
2246:
2242:
2241:
2236:
2233:
2230:
2226:
2225:
2222:
2219:
2214:
2209:
2203:
2193:
2188:
2183:
2179:
2178:
2177:
2174:
2171:
2167:
2166:
2165:
2160:
2155:
2151:
2147:
2143:
2138:
2134:
2130:
2129:
2128:
2125:
2122:
2118:
2113:
2095:
2090:
2085:
2081:
2077:
2076:
2075:
2072:
2069:
2065:
2060:
2059:
2058:
2053:
2048:
2044:
2040:
2037:
2032:
2028:
2027:
2026:
2023:
2020:
2016:
2012:
2010:
2007:
2004:
1999:
1998:
1997:
1992:
1987:
1983:
1979:
1976:
1972:
1968:
1964:
1960:
1956:
1952:
1948:
1947:
1946:
1943:
1940:
1935:
1934:
1933:
1928:
1923:
1919:
1916:
1915:
1910:
1906:
1905:
1904:
1901:
1898:
1894:
1890:
1886:
1885:
1884:
1879:
1874:
1870:
1866:
1862:
1861:
1855:
1851:
1850:
1849:
1848:
1845:
1842:
1838:
1830:
1822:
1818:
1814:
1813:Moby-Dick3000
1810:
1809:
1808:
1807:
1806:
1805:
1802:
1797:
1792:
1788:
1783:
1778:
1777:
1775:
1770:
1769:
1764:
1757:
1756:
1755:
1754:
1750:
1746:
1745:Moby-Dick3000
1738:
1734:
1729:
1724:
1720:
1719:
1718:
1717:
1714:
1711:
1710:
1703:
1699:
1691:
1687:
1682:
1677:
1673:
1669:
1665:
1661:
1657:
1653:
1649:
1645:
1640:
1636:
1632:
1628:
1625:
1622:
1618:
1615:
1611:
1607:
1604:
1599:
1598:
1597:
1596:
1595:
1594:
1590:
1586:
1578:
1574:
1569:
1564:
1560:
1556:
1552:
1551:
1550:
1549:
1545:
1541:
1537:
1524:
1520:
1515:
1510:
1506:
1502:
1501:
1500:
1499:
1495:
1491:
1484:re: threading
1483:
1481:
1480:
1477:
1476:
1474:Postlethwaite
1462:
1459:
1455:
1449:
1445:
1441:
1428:
1425:
1424:
1422:Postlethwaite
1415:
1412:
1411:
1410:
1409:
1406:
1400:
1396:
1392:
1389:
1385:
1384:
1378:
1376:
1373:
1372:
1368:
1364:
1359:
1356:
1354:
1350:
1344:
1342:
1338:
1334:
1328:
1326:
1322:
1318:
1310:
1306:
1301:
1296:
1292:
1288:
1283:
1279:
1274:
1273:
1271:
1270:
1269:
1268:
1264:
1260:
1251:
1243:
1238:
1233:
1229:
1224:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1220:
1219:
1214:
1210:
1206:
1202:
1193:
1192:
1191:
1190:
1187:
1182:
1177:
1173:
1169:
1151:
1147:
1124:
1120:
1111:
1107:
1103:
1102:
1098:
1095:and ordering
1094:
1090:
1086:
1082:
1078:
1077:
1073:
1069:
1065:
1064:
1060:
1055:
1051:
1038:
1028:
1015:
1005:
1004:
1000:
996:
992:
988:
984:
983:
982:
981:
977:
973:
969:
959:
955:
952:
947:
945:
941:
937:
930:
928:
927:
923:
919:
912:
908:
902:
898:
894:
890:
881:
880:
879:
878:
875:
870:
865:
861:
856:
851:
847:
844:
840:
839:
833:
829:
825:
822:
817:
814:
809:
806:
805:
804:
803:
799:
795:
791:
782:
780:
771:
767:
764:
760:
756:
753:
752:
751:
748:
742:
738:
734:
730:
725:
724:
721:Category DUH!
720:
718:
717:
713:
709:
701:
697:
692:
687:
683:
679:
678:
675:
670:
665:
661:
660:
659:
658:
654:
650:
646:
642:
634:
631:
625:
622:
618:
617:
616:
615:
612:
607:
602:
598:
597:
596:
594:
591:
586:
578:
570:
565:
560:
556:
552:
548:
543:
542:
541:
540:
539:
538:
533:
529:
525:
518:
517:
516:
515:
512:
507:
502:
498:
493:
488:
487:
486:
485:
481:
477:
471:
467:
463:
460:
456:
448:
438:
434:
430:
426:
425:
424:
419:
414:
409:
408:
407:
403:
399:
395:
394:
393:
388:
383:
379:
378:
377:
376:
372:
368:
364:
358:
355:
351:
346:
341:
337:
333:
332:
331:
330:
326:
322:
314:
307:
306:
301:
300:
293:
290:
289:
285:
271:
264:
263:
259:
252:
251:
247:
240:
239:
235:
228:
227:
223:
216:
215:
211:
204:
203:
199:
192:
191:
187:
180:
179:
175:
168:
167:
163:
156:
155:
151:
144:
143:
139:
132:
131:
127:
120:
119:
115:
108:
107:
103:
96:
95:
91:
84:
83:
79:
72:
71:
67:
60:
59:
55:
54:
50:
45:
40:
33:
32:
28:
27:
19:
2343:
2308:Teeninvestor
2304:
2285:
2264:
2220:
2149:
2145:
2035:
2030:
1981:
1970:
1967:very clearly
1966:
1962:
1958:
1954:
1950:
1913:
1908:
1868:
1864:
1859:
1853:
1834:
1781:
1742:
1708:Juliancolton
1705:
1695:
1671:
1667:
1663:
1659:
1655:
1651:
1647:
1634:
1630:
1620:
1613:
1609:
1603:camel's nose
1582:
1558:
1555:ex hypothesi
1554:
1528:
1505:John Quiggin
1487:
1468:
1465:
1440:MediationBot
1416:
1413:
1374:
1360:
1357:
1345:
1329:
1316:
1314:
1281:
1277:
1255:
1227:
1171:
1167:
1109:
1105:
1096:
1092:
1088:
1084:
1071:
1068:discreteness
1067:
1058:
1053:
1030:
1008:wrong about
1007:
998:
995:special case
994:
990:
986:
960:
956:
950:
948:
936:Math is hard
935:
934:
915:
859:
842:
838:Human Action
837:
831:
827:
820:
812:
783:
776:
749:
746:
705:
640:
637:
582:
550:
546:
496:
491:
452:
361:
318:
304:
291:
277:
269:
1982:appropriate
1955:quite a few
1949:There is a
1889:wp:red link
1361:Thank you,
1085:fundamental
547:punctuation
455:Marginalism
2354:SecurePoll
1672:disruptive
1353:click here
1228:vernacular
1066:It is not
836:v Mises's
761:, not the
649:Eluchil404
523:Goochelaar
475:Goochelaar
472:. Thanks,
2385:SlamDiego
2324:SlamDiego
2286:Thanks,
2245:SlamDiego
2229:-- Vision
2182:SlamDiego
2154:SlamDiego
2140:invoking
2084:SlamDiego
2047:SlamDiego
2029:No, it's
1986:SlamDiego
1963:arbitrary
1922:SlamDiego
1914:guideline
1891:and also
1873:SlamDiego
1791:SlamDiego
1763:Quotation
1723:SlamDiego
1676:SlamDiego
1660:obviously
1563:SlamDiego
1509:SlamDiego
1490:Xavexgoem
1295:SlamDiego
1252:Mediation
1232:SlamDiego
1176:SlamDiego
1172:undefined
1059:correctly
951:criticism
864:SlamDiego
759:economics
729:Mandsford
702:Ouch! ;-)
686:SlamDiego
682:Skomorokh
664:SlamDiego
647:or not.
621:Lankiveil
601:SlamDiego
590:Lankiveil
559:SlamDiego
501:SlamDiego
492:preferred
459:Aristotle
429:Shirooosh
413:SlamDiego
398:Shirooosh
382:SlamDiego
367:Shirooosh
340:SlamDiego
315:Annie Jr.
49:Orc Hives
29:Contents
2232:Thing --
2204:Barnstar
2170:Garion96
2152:world. —
2121:Garion96
2068:Garion96
2019:Garion96
2003:Garion96
1957:editors
1939:Garion96
1897:Garion96
1841:Garion96
1668:somebody
1444:operated
1399:accepted
1072:finitude
999:ordering
843:a priori
585:this AfD
579:SAP AfDs
551:integral
1739:Quoting
1700:on the
1656:obvious
1652:obvious
1648:obvious
1446:by the
1110:ordinal
911:WT:ECON
909:RfC at
828:closest
2366:Risker
2173:(talk)
2150:better
2142:WP:IAR
2137:WP:IAR
2133:WP:IAR
2124:(talk)
2080:WP:IAR
2071:(talk)
2064:WT:IAR
2043:WP:IAR
2022:(talk)
2006:(talk)
1951:policy
1942:(talk)
1909:policy
1900:(talk)
1844:(talk)
1631:weight
1610:policy
1559:per se
1106:shared
773:axiom.
2301:Reply
1971:awash
1534:RETOG
1199:RETOG
1093:wants
966:RETOG
887:RETOG
788:RETOG
633:Zipeg
497:wrong
260:, or
16:<
2370:talk
2312:talk
2292:talk
2146:this
2015:here
1959:care
1860:stop
1854:only
1817:talk
1749:talk
1692:Note
1635:more
1621:most
1614:most
1589:talk
1585:Gigs
1494:talk
1471:Ryan
1419:Ryan
1367:talk
1278:half
1263:talk
1174:.) —
1139:nor
991:more
987:less
940:here
922:talk
855:vita
733:talk
712:talk
653:talk
528:talk
480:talk
433:talk
402:talk
371:talk
325:talk
2036:red
2031:not
1869:qua
1865:qua
1170:is
821:the
641:not
468:is
268:in
256:in
244:in
232:in
220:in
208:in
196:in
184:in
172:in
160:in
148:in
136:in
124:in
112:in
100:in
88:in
76:in
64:in
2390:←T
2372:)
2329:←T
2314:)
2294:)
2250:←T
2187:←T
2159:←T
2119:.
2089:←T
2066:.
2052:←T
2017:.
1991:←T
1927:←T
1878:←T
1839:.
1819:)
1796:←T
1766:}}
1760:{{
1751:)
1728:←T
1712:|
1681:←T
1591:)
1568:←T
1546:)
1514:←T
1496:)
1393:A
1369:)
1363:LK
1343:.
1300:←T
1265:)
1259:LK
1237:←T
1211:)
1181:←T
978:)
924:)
918:LK
899:)
869:←T
800:)
735:)
714:)
691:←T
669:←T
655:)
606:←T
595:.
564:←T
530:)
506:←T
482:)
435:)
418:←T
404:)
387:←T
373:)
345:←T
327:)
272:.
248:,
236:,
224:,
212:,
200:,
188:,
176:,
164:,
152:,
140:,
128:,
116:,
104:,
92:,
80:,
68:,
2368:(
2310:(
2290:(
2282:.
2276:;
1977:.
1917:.
1815:(
1789:—
1747:(
1605:.
1587:(
1544:c
1542:/
1540:t
1538:(
1536:8
1532:C
1492:(
1456:.
1407:.
1401:.
1365:(
1261:(
1209:c
1207:/
1205:t
1203:(
1201:8
1197:C
1152:n
1148:X
1125:m
1121:X
1061:.
1039:X
1016:X
976:c
974:/
972:t
970:(
968:8
964:C
920:(
897:c
895:/
893:t
891:(
889:8
885:C
832:I
798:c
796:/
794:t
792:(
790:8
786:C
731:(
710:(
651:(
526:(
478:(
431:(
411:—
400:(
369:(
323:(
266:·
254:·
242:·
230:·
218:·
206:·
194:·
182:·
170:·
158:·
146:·
134:·
122:·
110:·
98:·
86:·
74:·
62:·
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
