![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hey, you still there? I just came back to see what's going on with you and the monetary theory articles. You're insanely diligent in making sure that Wikipedia's information is actually fairly correct. I noticed, though, that you don't edit as much as you used to. I don't either. That's just my personality, though. ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 00:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
You are invited to look at my user page, where I am making an attempt to start a new article on Money and the Money Supply. Your advice and suggestions are invited Martycarbone ( talk) 16:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I rewrite the section you deleted and add “theoretical” explanation. As I'm not a professional economist (and, that is much worse, I don't know English economic terminology), I think it's written quite bad. Could you fix it up?-- 92.39.161.195 ( talk) 12:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Gregalton - what will satisfy you regarding Graham Towers' comments on the BoC regarding how it creates money? The document referenced is not available online only extracts. What do I need to do so that you will not delete the facts I am attempting to post. I actually have a copy of the Standing Committee on Banking and Commerce, 1939 - do I need to photocopy or digitally reproduce it and post it online to make you happy? Or is it simply, that you do not want facts placed on wikipedia about the Boc which are not flattering? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.216.123 ( talk) 15:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
gregalton - did you read the actual exchanges between Towers and Mcgeer or just the header - the content is that money is created by banks out of thin air. try reading the content before declaring it content free. the facts as presented by mr towers are disturbiing - money as debt, tough to accept, but it is reality and your attempts to hide this FACT does disservice to wikipedia read it, accept it and share it please sir. -Q. But there is no question about it that banks create the medium of exchange? Mr. Towers: That is right. That is what they are for... That is the Banking business, just in the same way that a steel plant makes steel. (p. 287) The manufacturing process consists of making a pen-and-ink or typewriter entry on a card in a book. That is all. (pp. 76 and 238) Each and every time a bank makes a loan (or purchases securities), new bank credit is created — new deposits — brand new money. (pp. 113 and 238) Broadly speaking, all new money comes out of a Bank in the form of loans. As loans are debts, then under the present system all money is debt. (p. 459) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.157.223 ( talk) 16:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
{{
unblock|This block does not make sense to me: a) the reported 3rr was not established, as per the ANI resolution; b) there was no warning in any case; and c) the stated reason ("Well, he's kept on edit warring this evening...") does not appear to me to be the case. On the article in question, I made a number of substantive edits hours before this came up (as yet uncontested by anyone), asked for a clarification of the reasons for a disputed flag (but left the flag), reverted one bit of vandalism, and reverted one choice of word (inflation "erodes", it does not "destroy" value). Both of these last edits were made by IP addresses and I should think I would get the benefit of the doubt for a vandalism revert and one clearly (to me) mistaken choice of words from IP addresses. If not, I would be grateful what edit warring is being referred to.}}
I would support an unblock. This situation is quite complicated, but please see WP:ANI#Sockpuppetry and POV-pushing on Austrian School and related topics. — Satori Son 21:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Re your message: Not a problem. Normally he just repeats that screed that you reverted, but this time he decided to vandalize another section of the article. As you can see, I've been dealing with him for awhile now. -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 20:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Greg,
I thought you would like to know that we are trying to hammer out a consensus about Austrian economics on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Economics. Please drop by and leave your comments.
thanks, lk ( talk) 16:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I've recently re-written the "traditional analysis" section of the said article, and you have reverted it.
The original text did not look like text at all. The paragraphs had no connection to each other. Sometimes, even sentences had no connection with the previous.
One such example is "The link between the currency regime (for example, fiat currency or precious-metal backed currencies) and the banking regime (fractional reserve or full reserve banking) is not seen as fixed, as virtually all banking systems worldwide operate on some form of fractional reserve banking, and full-reserve banking is often considered "hypothetical."[8][9]
Neither is the insight that banks "create money by extending loans" considered new, and the subject is covered in most introductory economics textbooks and many popular reference works."
(the two phrases have no connection in the text. The implication would be "debt based" does not bring new ideas, but this is not said! that was the kind of thing I tried to get right)
Another problem was for users without familiarity with the subject. The section refuted the claims of the "debt based" guys without saying what those were.
In summation, I did not mean to change content, but form. And i think the form had gotten better.
After my rewrite, I added an topic for it on the discussion page. Can you go there explain why you think the article is better like it is ?
regards, Cold Light ( talk) 17:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay. In my opinion, it will be easier to use the structure of the text (and correct the grammar. Btw, I only found 3 misspelled words in the section with aspell) I wrote rather than try to organize things again fro the beggining.
I divided the text in "points of agreement", analysis differences, recommendation differences and conclusion.
Also, I grouped together affirmations that were repeated many times on the text, and added the claims that were being refuted.
So, I'll revert back, and try to do a bit of a cleanup.
As to deletion, the criticisms may be wrong for various reasons (I really don't know) but that seems to me that this just calls for a well written article that has both the claims, their reasons, and the reasons mainstream disagrees. I, for one, learned on the discussion page that some claims from "money as debt" (the video that got me interested in the subject) were untrue. It would be nice to have a place saying "the claim that a bank can gather 1000 of deposits and lend 9000 straight away is wrong". Cold Light ( talk) 18:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
It'll be ready soon Cold Light ( talk) 19:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I strongly oppose the removal of items from article without discussing it first. If I revert the item removed without discussing it, then I will be blocked for "edit warring" and for being a "disruptive editor." The person who removed the item does not get blocked for "edit warring." The person removing the statement without discussing it first, is not labelled a "disruptive editor".
So, let´s discuss this matter. I think the statement: "Deflation is a contraction in the volume of money and credit relative to available goods and services." should stay in the lead since it accurately defines what deflation is.
Discussion regarding all the above matters invited.
PennySeven ( talk) 17:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I am not he original author of the statement.
PennySeven ( talk) 17:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Gregalton, how are your secret harmfull email conspiracies [1] against me going??
PennySeven ( talk) 12:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Normal procedure: PennySeven gets banned for personal attacks and Gregalton and Santori Son get barn stars for successful secret email conspiracy. PennySeven ( talk) 12:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Obviously secret email conspiracies between consenting Wikipedia editors instigated by Gregalton and Santori Son are not personal attacks on PennySeven. To the contrary, these secret email conspiracies meant to harm PennySeven are lauditory Wikipedia behaviour in good Wikipedia spirit. PennySeven ( talk) 13:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
PennySeven ( talk) 20:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
PennySeven ( talk) 20:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Gregalton, remember, when you kill PennySeven, you will have to delete the whole Constant Purchasing Power Accounting article plus all the contributions of PennySeven to Wikipedia. There are many contributions that you will have to delete. So, please be efficient: Once you have killed off PennySeven, then you must remove all his contributions, don´t forget that.
PennySeven ( talk) 21:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Conspiracy (civil) (US), an agreement between persons to deceive, mislead, or defraud others of their legal rights, or to gain an unfair advantage. [2]
PennySeven ( talk) 19:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
PennySeven ( talk) 10:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
PennySeven ( talk) 22:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
PennySeven ( talk) 23:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
PennySeven ( talk) 20:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
PennySeven ( talk) 21:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC) ~
PennySeven ( talk) 21:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
PennySeven ( talk) 22:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
PennySeven ( talk) 22:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
PennySeven ( talk) 23:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
PennySeven ( talk) 06:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
PennySeven ( talk) 07:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
PennySeven ( talk) 08:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
PennySeven ( talk) 12:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
PennySeven ( talk) 12:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
PennySeven ( talk) 13:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
PennySeven ( talk) 19:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
PennySeven ( talk) 20:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
PennySeven ( talk) 20:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
PennySeven ( talk) 21:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
PennySeven ( talk) 22:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi there GREGALTON, VASCO from PORTUGAL here,
I will make one small request from you, my wiki-friend: i have visited SATORISON's talk page and found out all this mambo-jambo directed to you and him by another user; also judging by his contributions (which stopped in its tracks about 2 weeks ago), i deduced that he is "missing from action".
He has been very helpful and polite in helping me deal with cases (two) of vandalism, which will unfortunately NEVER be solved unless the vandal chooses to "see the light". As user PENNYSEVEN puts it, NO ONE (VERY unfortunately) can be prevented from posting at WIKIPEDIA in ALL places, everytime.
All in all, i would like a brief answer. If you two have been in contact, could you just tell me if everything's okay with SATORI? Is he planning to return?
Thank you very much in advance, keep up the good work,
VASCO AMARAL - -- NothingButAGoodNothing ( talk) 22:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
You mean you are editing items out of the additional reading section of the history of canada page - wtf?? - IT'S ADDITIONAL READING - what kind of fascist are you? - You remove things from the additional reading section - Is there some kind of issue you have with the Mr. Myers' document or work? It's all factual. Removing stuff from the additional reading section - sensorship to the max Gregalton —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.176.227.46 ( talk) 18:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Gregalton - there is nothing wrong with the link posted as further reading item. I agree that the link odes not take you right to the document I would like however, the scroll on the left of the screen does bring you to a perfectly legitimate document. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrpoisson ( talk • contribs) 20:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Same goes for the bank of canada edit there is no reason that anyone should not be made aware of the document by Myers and given the opportunity to explore it, if that id=s what they wish. But to hide the document and not let others know it is there is not right. Gregalton there is no reason for this link to be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrpoisson ( talk • contribs) 21:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Business and Economics Barnstar | |
For your tireless contribution to improving the quality of Economic discourse in Wikipedia. LK ( talk) 09:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC) |
Economics articles are looking a lot better today than they did a year ago, and your efforts have made a major contribution to that. -- LK ( talk) 09:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hey, you still there? I just came back to see what's going on with you and the monetary theory articles. You're insanely diligent in making sure that Wikipedia's information is actually fairly correct. I noticed, though, that you don't edit as much as you used to. I don't either. That's just my personality, though. ☯ Zenwhat ( talk) 00:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
You are invited to look at my user page, where I am making an attempt to start a new article on Money and the Money Supply. Your advice and suggestions are invited Martycarbone ( talk) 16:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I rewrite the section you deleted and add “theoretical” explanation. As I'm not a professional economist (and, that is much worse, I don't know English economic terminology), I think it's written quite bad. Could you fix it up?-- 92.39.161.195 ( talk) 12:14, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Gregalton - what will satisfy you regarding Graham Towers' comments on the BoC regarding how it creates money? The document referenced is not available online only extracts. What do I need to do so that you will not delete the facts I am attempting to post. I actually have a copy of the Standing Committee on Banking and Commerce, 1939 - do I need to photocopy or digitally reproduce it and post it online to make you happy? Or is it simply, that you do not want facts placed on wikipedia about the Boc which are not flattering? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.216.123 ( talk) 15:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
gregalton - did you read the actual exchanges between Towers and Mcgeer or just the header - the content is that money is created by banks out of thin air. try reading the content before declaring it content free. the facts as presented by mr towers are disturbiing - money as debt, tough to accept, but it is reality and your attempts to hide this FACT does disservice to wikipedia read it, accept it and share it please sir. -Q. But there is no question about it that banks create the medium of exchange? Mr. Towers: That is right. That is what they are for... That is the Banking business, just in the same way that a steel plant makes steel. (p. 287) The manufacturing process consists of making a pen-and-ink or typewriter entry on a card in a book. That is all. (pp. 76 and 238) Each and every time a bank makes a loan (or purchases securities), new bank credit is created — new deposits — brand new money. (pp. 113 and 238) Broadly speaking, all new money comes out of a Bank in the form of loans. As loans are debts, then under the present system all money is debt. (p. 459) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.157.223 ( talk) 16:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
{{
unblock|This block does not make sense to me: a) the reported 3rr was not established, as per the ANI resolution; b) there was no warning in any case; and c) the stated reason ("Well, he's kept on edit warring this evening...") does not appear to me to be the case. On the article in question, I made a number of substantive edits hours before this came up (as yet uncontested by anyone), asked for a clarification of the reasons for a disputed flag (but left the flag), reverted one bit of vandalism, and reverted one choice of word (inflation "erodes", it does not "destroy" value). Both of these last edits were made by IP addresses and I should think I would get the benefit of the doubt for a vandalism revert and one clearly (to me) mistaken choice of words from IP addresses. If not, I would be grateful what edit warring is being referred to.}}
I would support an unblock. This situation is quite complicated, but please see WP:ANI#Sockpuppetry and POV-pushing on Austrian School and related topics. — Satori Son 21:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Re your message: Not a problem. Normally he just repeats that screed that you reverted, but this time he decided to vandalize another section of the article. As you can see, I've been dealing with him for awhile now. -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 20:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Greg,
I thought you would like to know that we are trying to hammer out a consensus about Austrian economics on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Economics. Please drop by and leave your comments.
thanks, lk ( talk) 16:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I've recently re-written the "traditional analysis" section of the said article, and you have reverted it.
The original text did not look like text at all. The paragraphs had no connection to each other. Sometimes, even sentences had no connection with the previous.
One such example is "The link between the currency regime (for example, fiat currency or precious-metal backed currencies) and the banking regime (fractional reserve or full reserve banking) is not seen as fixed, as virtually all banking systems worldwide operate on some form of fractional reserve banking, and full-reserve banking is often considered "hypothetical."[8][9]
Neither is the insight that banks "create money by extending loans" considered new, and the subject is covered in most introductory economics textbooks and many popular reference works."
(the two phrases have no connection in the text. The implication would be "debt based" does not bring new ideas, but this is not said! that was the kind of thing I tried to get right)
Another problem was for users without familiarity with the subject. The section refuted the claims of the "debt based" guys without saying what those were.
In summation, I did not mean to change content, but form. And i think the form had gotten better.
After my rewrite, I added an topic for it on the discussion page. Can you go there explain why you think the article is better like it is ?
regards, Cold Light ( talk) 17:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay. In my opinion, it will be easier to use the structure of the text (and correct the grammar. Btw, I only found 3 misspelled words in the section with aspell) I wrote rather than try to organize things again fro the beggining.
I divided the text in "points of agreement", analysis differences, recommendation differences and conclusion.
Also, I grouped together affirmations that were repeated many times on the text, and added the claims that were being refuted.
So, I'll revert back, and try to do a bit of a cleanup.
As to deletion, the criticisms may be wrong for various reasons (I really don't know) but that seems to me that this just calls for a well written article that has both the claims, their reasons, and the reasons mainstream disagrees. I, for one, learned on the discussion page that some claims from "money as debt" (the video that got me interested in the subject) were untrue. It would be nice to have a place saying "the claim that a bank can gather 1000 of deposits and lend 9000 straight away is wrong". Cold Light ( talk) 18:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
It'll be ready soon Cold Light ( talk) 19:15, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I strongly oppose the removal of items from article without discussing it first. If I revert the item removed without discussing it, then I will be blocked for "edit warring" and for being a "disruptive editor." The person who removed the item does not get blocked for "edit warring." The person removing the statement without discussing it first, is not labelled a "disruptive editor".
So, let´s discuss this matter. I think the statement: "Deflation is a contraction in the volume of money and credit relative to available goods and services." should stay in the lead since it accurately defines what deflation is.
Discussion regarding all the above matters invited.
PennySeven ( talk) 17:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
I am not he original author of the statement.
PennySeven ( talk) 17:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Gregalton, how are your secret harmfull email conspiracies [1] against me going??
PennySeven ( talk) 12:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Normal procedure: PennySeven gets banned for personal attacks and Gregalton and Santori Son get barn stars for successful secret email conspiracy. PennySeven ( talk) 12:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Obviously secret email conspiracies between consenting Wikipedia editors instigated by Gregalton and Santori Son are not personal attacks on PennySeven. To the contrary, these secret email conspiracies meant to harm PennySeven are lauditory Wikipedia behaviour in good Wikipedia spirit. PennySeven ( talk) 13:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
PennySeven ( talk) 20:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
PennySeven ( talk) 20:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Gregalton, remember, when you kill PennySeven, you will have to delete the whole Constant Purchasing Power Accounting article plus all the contributions of PennySeven to Wikipedia. There are many contributions that you will have to delete. So, please be efficient: Once you have killed off PennySeven, then you must remove all his contributions, don´t forget that.
PennySeven ( talk) 21:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Conspiracy (civil) (US), an agreement between persons to deceive, mislead, or defraud others of their legal rights, or to gain an unfair advantage. [2]
PennySeven ( talk) 19:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
PennySeven ( talk) 10:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
PennySeven ( talk) 22:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
PennySeven ( talk) 23:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
PennySeven ( talk) 20:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
PennySeven ( talk) 21:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC) ~
PennySeven ( talk) 21:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
PennySeven ( talk) 22:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
PennySeven ( talk) 22:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
PennySeven ( talk) 23:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
PennySeven ( talk) 06:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
PennySeven ( talk) 07:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
PennySeven ( talk) 08:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
PennySeven ( talk) 12:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
PennySeven ( talk) 12:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
PennySeven ( talk) 13:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
PennySeven ( talk) 19:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
PennySeven ( talk) 20:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
PennySeven ( talk) 20:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
PennySeven ( talk) 21:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
PennySeven ( talk) 22:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi there GREGALTON, VASCO from PORTUGAL here,
I will make one small request from you, my wiki-friend: i have visited SATORISON's talk page and found out all this mambo-jambo directed to you and him by another user; also judging by his contributions (which stopped in its tracks about 2 weeks ago), i deduced that he is "missing from action".
He has been very helpful and polite in helping me deal with cases (two) of vandalism, which will unfortunately NEVER be solved unless the vandal chooses to "see the light". As user PENNYSEVEN puts it, NO ONE (VERY unfortunately) can be prevented from posting at WIKIPEDIA in ALL places, everytime.
All in all, i would like a brief answer. If you two have been in contact, could you just tell me if everything's okay with SATORI? Is he planning to return?
Thank you very much in advance, keep up the good work,
VASCO AMARAL - -- NothingButAGoodNothing ( talk) 22:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
You mean you are editing items out of the additional reading section of the history of canada page - wtf?? - IT'S ADDITIONAL READING - what kind of fascist are you? - You remove things from the additional reading section - Is there some kind of issue you have with the Mr. Myers' document or work? It's all factual. Removing stuff from the additional reading section - sensorship to the max Gregalton —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.176.227.46 ( talk) 18:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Gregalton - there is nothing wrong with the link posted as further reading item. I agree that the link odes not take you right to the document I would like however, the scroll on the left of the screen does bring you to a perfectly legitimate document. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrpoisson ( talk • contribs) 20:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Same goes for the bank of canada edit there is no reason that anyone should not be made aware of the document by Myers and given the opportunity to explore it, if that id=s what they wish. But to hide the document and not let others know it is there is not right. Gregalton there is no reason for this link to be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrpoisson ( talk • contribs) 21:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
The Business and Economics Barnstar | |
For your tireless contribution to improving the quality of Economic discourse in Wikipedia. LK ( talk) 09:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC) |
Economics articles are looking a lot better today than they did a year ago, and your efforts have made a major contribution to that. -- LK ( talk) 09:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC)