User talk:Dikteren
Welcome!
[edit]
|
Oil prices update
[edit]Hi there. You posted some nice graphs regarding oil prices. Is there any chance for you to update your graphs to reflect the peak and ongoing drop?----Mariordo (talk) 02:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- Hello from me too. I also would appreciate an update to Image:Oil Prices Medium Term.png to add the prices from March 2008 until now (December 2008). I made a temporary chart (Image:NYMEX Light Sweet Crude Oil prices from 2005 to 2008-12-02.svg) of prices from 2005 to now from the same source. I included the data in the page description, so it could easily be added to your own source for updating the chart. I could import all the data from 1994 to complete my chart, but gave up as it is tedious work, but if anyone could point me to a complete set of data (CSV or text format) up to 2005 I can create a full up to date chart. I will also drop a note on User talk:Jpo. 84user (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oil price update
[edit]Hi. You did work pertaining to the file Image:Oil Prices Medium Term.png. I have uploaded a new image to the Wikipedia Commons Image:WTI price 96 09.PNG that is close enough to fully replace it. My work is done by simple MS Excel and Paint. Leave me a note if you want to collaborate in some way (I'm open to sharing my Excel file to improve maintainability). And aside from keeping it up, many different derivatives could be useful from the data source.
I might cross post this to some other user's talk pages. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 05:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
NowCommons: File:Oil Prices Medium Term.png
[edit]File:Oil Prices Medium Term.png is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:Oil Prices Medium Term.png. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:Oil Prices Medium Term.png]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 23:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Revert on Economic Rent article
[edit]You reverted my change on the economic rent article. I would like to know more about why you did that. I tried to start a conversation on the article's talk page. Please let me know what you think. Thanks! Gabiteodoru (talk) 03:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Physicians run a cartel, which is a classic example to demonstrate economic rent. Several references are offered here on this blog by a physician and professor at the Univesity of Michigan[1].Dikteren (talk) 14:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I believe that what goes on there is that the cartel convinced the gov't to remove public funding for Med schools, as opposed to shutting down Med schools. I believe that because I was able to find sources stating that gov't does remove public funding for Med schools at the recommendation of cartels (I can quote them if you want), and have been unable to find any sources saying that gov't actually forced Med schools to close, and I believe that under the US Constitution they couldn't really do that. I would think it's arguable whether it's still economic rent when you are fighting a subsidy, as economic rent is defined in relation with the natural running of the free market, and by fighting a subsidy they are doing the opposite -- driving the situation towards a free market. I'm happy to add a summary of these to the article, but I would really like to change it, since right now I think the example in the page strongly implies that the government actually shuts down non-government funded Med schools, so I would like to clarify that this doesn't happen. If you believe that this does happen, then please provide sources. Thanks! Gabiteodoru (talk) 19:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC) I followed the sources from that blog entry and got to: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMhpr033066 . This clearly shows that gov't reduced funding for subsidizing med schools, and funding for subsidizing hospital residencies, but did not shut down anything. One article does mention pushing for regulating the practice of mid-wives, but in general all doctors are regulated. Perhaps there are other examples to be given for economic rent that are more realistic. Gabiteodoru (talk) 20:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I just want to let you know that G. Edward White is pretty well respected in the legal and political science communities. I've reverted your edit in the article, cut and paste a substantial portion of the switch in time article to JRB37, and would like to point out that White's comments are perfectly in line with both historical facts and the order of events as presented in the article (please take note, in particular, of the timeline at the end of the article). The truth is what it is: JRB37 was tightly kept in the dark by FDR's administration before it was publicly announced, and Roberts had cast his vote more than 6 weeks prior to its announcement and even voted to grant cert before FDR's landslide. Therefore, Roosevelt's plan could not possibly have had any effect on how the justices voted regarding that specific case.
The argument with all the historical weight behind it is that Roberts, like any good judge, waited for the issue to be properly raised and brought to him before acting on it. Judges correctly exercising their judicial authority don't just decide a case on any basis they think will justify their opinion, but instead tailor their opinion to answer the legal questions brought to them by the attorneys. This was all done and over with before the court-packing plan became public. Without the fundamental assertion that Roosevelt's plan affected the justices' votes, the "switch in time" narrative falls apart entirely. Thus, White's conclusion is pretty accurate and withstands historical and academic criticism. Cheers! -- Foofighter20x (talk) 08:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- I am impartial about it and don't frankly care about any of the details. If, however, you want to make a claim of chronology, you must at least make the timeline described in the article correspond with your alleged chronology. The article clearly states, "The legislation was unveiled on February 5, 1937... on March 29, the Supreme Court upheld." Which comes first - February 5, or March 29?Dikteren (talk) 15:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
- Moved my response to the JRB37 discussion page. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 18:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
-- John of Reading (talk) 08:27, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
SFUSD
[edit]Hi! This edit ended up removing reference used to verify information so I undid the edit.
You may object to Lyanne Melendez's statements: "but the local courts and the district have found that race-neutral factors haven't worked in San Francisco's case." but please don't remove the underlying reference as it supports other material in the article.
The source (use the archive.is archive link) says: " San Francisco Unified is an example of what the Supreme Court may be looking for. They use only race-neutral factors. For example, a family's socio-economic status, but the local courts and the district have found that race-neutral factors haven't worked in San Francisco's case. David Campos, Legal Counsel: "For the last few years after we stopped using race, our schools have desegregated." "
WhisperToMe (talk) 23:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 25
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited San Francisco Board of Education, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Owens and Dan Kelly. 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) 11:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
[edit]
Hello, Dikteren. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
[edit]Hello, Dikteren. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
[edit]Hello, Dikteren. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Introduction to contentious topics
[edit]
You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
- adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
Doug Weller talk 14:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Please note especially that Andy Ngo has active arbitration remedies:
- You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)
- Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page
- See the notice at the talk page for further info. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:58, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
January 2024
[edit]
This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Andy Ngo, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Violation of WP:NPOV and deletion of sourced text replacing it with text that contradicts the source Doug Weller talk 14:43, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- Cite your sources. The edit was a NPOV. That you even fathom asserting that Andy Ngo is not a journalist speaks for itself that you are thoroughly unqualified to have an administrative editorial role. Dikteren (talk) 15:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- The word journalist is in the article 34 times. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Dikteren but O3000 isn't an Administrator. I am and you accused me falsely of editing Andy Ngo which I didn't do. Doug Weller talk 16:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Dikteren I didn't edit the article, why ask me for sources? Doug Weller talk 16:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
- The word journalist is in the article 34 times. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Posting on user talkpages
[edit]Please don't post in the middle of an old thread on people's talkpages, as you did here, but at the bottom of the page. This makes it more likely that your post will be seen and noticed. Though in this case, better avoid posting nonsense accusations anywhere on any page. Bishonen | tålk 18:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC).
