User talk:Gregalton/Archive 3

Hey, don't give up!

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)

Agreed! Your efforts on the various economics articles have always been much appreciated. Hopefully, you're just taking a Wikibreak – just finished a three-month one myself – and will come back refreshed and re-energized. Best, Satori Son — 17:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Whoops... I see you've been back already. Don't let the cranks and trolls get to you and keep up the good work! — Satori Son 17:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words from you both. Just been travelling, busy, and maybe just a wee bit burnt out. Don't know if I'd call it a wikibreak, really, maybe a wikinap.--Gregalton (talk) 09:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Invitation (moved)

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)

Monetization

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)

Bank of Canada

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)

My issue is that the quote doesn't say anything: "Some of the most frank evidence on banking practices was given by Graham F. Towers, Governor of the Central Bank of Canada (from 1934 to 1955), before the Canadian Government's Committee on Banking and Commerce, in 1939. Its proceedings cover 850 pages. (Standing Committee on Banking and Commerce, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence Respecting the Bank of Canada, Ottawa, J.O. Patenaude, I.S.O., Printer to the King's Most Excellent Majesty, 1939.)" All this tells us about is the source - nothing about what it is claiming or attempting to say. It adds nothing to the article whatsoever. Who cares that there are 850 pages? What does it claim? There's nothing even to comment on. As it stands, it's not flattering or derogatory - it's content free.--Gregalton (talk) 17:31, 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)

This is covered in any article on money creation and is, despite what you may read on the internet, not controversial. My point was that the text as inserted only said that there was a frank exchange of banking practices. Perhaps if you wanted to emphasize this point it would be better to insert a wikilink to money creation.--Gregalton (talk) 19:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Block notice

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at inflation. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Stifle (talk) 19:48, 7 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)

I also disagree with the block and support an immediate unblock. The edits that the administrator was referring to were previously uncontested modifications (mostly different sections) to the article and not a continuation of the previous conflict or a start of a new one. Reverts were either due to vandalism or new disagreements that did not proceed any further.

Sockpuppets (which had no play in this incident) and POV aside, the lack of evidence or reasoning beyond the accusation of the administrator from a follow-up review presents a misunderstanding of the type of edits that the administrator observed. -- EGeek (talk) 21:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the consideration and rapid resolution. Not that the block itself was that onerous, but I honestly didn't see the issue.--Gregalton (talk) 03:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Now that I look at the original notice, two of the reversions had nothing whatsoever to do with 3rr, and one was a clear reversion of vandalism. Just for the record. Thanks once again.--Gregalton (talk) 05:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Now that the full extent of this problem has come to light, I have asked for assistance at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics and Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. Hopefully, you'll get some help keeping these articles in compliance with policy. — Satori Son 12:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Federal Reserve

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)

Consensus about Austrian economics on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Economics

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)

rewrite on "criticism of fractional ..."

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)

Deflation is a contraction in the volume of money and credit relative to available goods and services.

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)

I don't know what you're talking about, and have not been involved in the edit dispute you're referring to.--Gregalton (talk) 02:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Gregalton and Santori Son, how are your secret harmfull email conspiracies against me going??

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)

Congratulations Santori Son and Gregalton: you two are inspirational models for Wikipedia editors.

PennySeven (talk) 20:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Santori Son and Gregalton: Both of you will be awarded Barnstars for Conspirational Efficiency in secret email conspiratorial operations against other productive Wikipedia editors endeavoring to promote the Wikipedia spirit of enhancing the availability of knowledge to everyone.

Please Santori Son and Gregalton, we are eagerly awaiting your destruction of PennySeven. That is what Wikipedia is about to you, is it not, Santori Son and Gregalton? Destroying the productive efforts of another well-meaning Wikipedia editor. What you are trying is not possible, and you know that. You cannot prohibit any person from contributing to the good work of Wikipedia. It is impossible. You know that. But, nevertheless, you carry on with your useless secret email conspiracy against me.

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

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)

Are you Nicholaas Smith?--Gregalton (talk) 03:46, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I am not.

PennySeven (talk) 10:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not convinced that is truthful.--Gregalton (talk) 18:12, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Please stop the personal attack.

PennySeven (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

It is obviously a futile wish that you will stop your personal attack agaist me since you and Santori Son are this very moment undeniably busy with your secret email conspiracy against me.

PennySeven (talk) 23:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The person in question has a history of personal attacks against me, as well as a history of being less than truthful. I believe you are that person. When I compile this information, I can assure you it will be completely and entirely disclosed here. In the meantime, since I have not taken any action, you can be calm.

And just so it is clear why I have chosen to take the route of direct email contact with Santori Son (although I haven't done so yet), it is because I don't think it constructive in these fora at this time.

To date, the only action that can be construed as a "personal attack" I have actually undertaken is to say that I believe you are who you say you aren't. That's it. If it turns out I am demonstrably wrong about that, I will apologise.--Gregalton (talk) 15:12, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I cannot and do not change my answer above. It is a truthful answer. It is here on the record for everyone to see. You will find that my answer is truthful.

PennySeven (talk) 20:50, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I am helping a student from a country far from mine right now with her final year project which involves inflation and other articles here on Wikipedia that I contributed to. I find that much more rewarding than what you spend your time on.

You have succeeded in killing my enthusiasm for contributing to Wikipedia, though I can now see that it does help people.

PennySeven (talk) 21:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC) ~

I know that you have already driven other contributors from Wikipedia. And I do not mean the Austrians. To you this is a personal attack. To others it is simply a fact.

PennySeven (talk) 21:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Gregalton, this is what upsets me about your approach to Wikipedia: you do not give any credit to an editor for what he or she contributed to Wikipedia. What you are interested in is if that person is a sockpuppet. That is your main interest here on Wikipedia. I am not a sockpuppet and I am not Nicholaas Smith. Why don´t you go and check my contribution history? You will see I have deleted all my contributions to the Inflation article - because of editors like you. I am quite happy to delete the whole Constant Purchasing Power Accounting article that I contributed in full too. I have already deleted it once you have started your email conspiracy. Someone else put it back.

But, Gregalton, you are welcome to delete it. After a long enough time of enduring your treatement a person just gets saturated.

PennySeven (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Gregalton, I will say it: you have a history of driving Austrians as well as good faith editors from contributing to Wikipedia. I will not spend one minute in compiling any evidence about this. Many editors know this is true.

PennySeven (talk) 22:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Clearly this "long time" that you are referring to goes back to a time before you were using the name PennySeven. If this is not the case, why not just drop it?--Gregalton (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Drop what?

PennySeven (talk) 23:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

No, this long time that I am referring to does not go back to what you are referring to. Stop trying to fabricate evidence.

PennySeven (talk) 06:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Gregalton, you are the salt of the earth: from the grumbling beehive :) BTW, we are not related - in more ways than one :)

PennySeven (talk) 07:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The fact that it was a sixpenny pamphlet is not valid proof for what you are trying to do :)

PennySeven (talk) 08:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I politely request that you decline from further posting here, since there is little value I can see in continuing this. If you wish to complain about me, please take it to an admin's page.--Gregalton (talk) 08:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I already know from experience that censorship is part of your type´s make-up. I have more useful things to do.

PennySeven (talk) 12:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you Gregalton, Wikipedia is based on principles that are alien to you, like freedom of information from reliable sources. If you think you can censor reliable sources you will only have limited success to the detriment of Wikipedia.

PennySeven (talk) 12:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

So, do not try and censor me or anyone here on Wikipedia, since you cannot and you know that.

PennySeven (talk) 13:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You have reverted to personal attacks again. Please stop. Politely requesting that you decline from posting on my talk page can hardly be considered censorship.--Gregalton (talk) 15:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

One of the worst types of personal attacks: a secret email conspiracy against another editor á la Gregalton.

I will post on any space in Wikipedia where I can post.

Censor: A person who suppresses what is considered objectionable.

PennySeven (talk) 19:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Asking you to stop posting on my talk page is hardly suppressing anything.

Second, there are guidelines that discourage posting personal information on WP pages. This is why I will be communicating directly with the other editor, to avoid posting personal information about another editor here. And yes, I believe you are that other editor.

I now ask, politely, once again, that you stop posting on this talk page. Please. It's not constructive.--Gregalton (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is open to the world. Anyone can post here on your talk page - including me. It is strange that you are trying to stop someone - anyone - from posting on your talk page. You certainly live in a different age from the present one.

PennySeven (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You must be crazy if you think you can start a personal attack against me by starting a secret email conspiracy against me on Satori Son´s talk page and then you come and ask me "very politely" to stop posting on your talk page.

Now I am going to say something that you will find completely impossible to understand: If you had not started the personal attack against me by starting your secret email conspiracy agaist me on Satori Son´s talk page, I would not have posted all the above here on your talk page. I know you do not understand this.

PennySeven (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Here is something else you will never understand: you brought this on yourself.

PennySeven (talk) 21:06, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but it appears that I am the only editor who your are attacking with a secret email conspiracy at the moment. I may be wrong, but it also appears that I am the only editor you are requesting "very politely" not to post on your talk page. Are you crazy?? :) :) :)

Let it be on the record that what is written here is truthful.

PennySeven (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

A good note

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)

aDDITIONAL READING

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)

See the link guidelines in the WP general instructions. You could link to a proper link at books.google.com easily. I do not have an issue with Myers as a link, just linking to a page that has no connection to the book, no information, etc.--Gregalton (talk) 23:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The Business and Economics Barnstar

		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)