User talk:BigK HeX/Archive 6

Talk page discourse

[1] Threatening other editors with user conduct RfCs in an article talk page discussion is not very helpful. If you have a personal problem with another editor, take it up on their user talk page. Article talk pages should focus on the topic, not the editors. Cla68 (talk) 01:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I find no problem with my comments. Thanks, all the same, though. BigK HeX (talk) 01:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Cla68. None of these comments are particularly helpful.[2][3][4] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

As not-so-subtle hints for a tendentious editor to check his behavior, I find them helpful enough. BigK HeX (talk) 23:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

For this reason, please check civility page out. Thank you.--CnkALTDS^message 22:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I stand by my post, and would make another such post again now, if warranted. BigK HeX (talk) 23:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

So it means you will be warned again. Thank you.--CnkALTDS^message 11:21, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if this is how you construe the Civility policies, I ask that you not post on my talk page again regarding anything related to civility issues ever. Thanks. BigK HeX (talk) 12:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that threatening with RfC's aren't helpful, but I also fail to see any civility issues here, nor from what I can remember anywhere else in anything BigK Hex has written. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

CRU hack RFC

I've removed this from an ongoing RFC because it seems to be mainly an interpersonal dispute. Mark Nutley has been notified. --TS 00:36, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

• MN, your behavior here resembles rather blatant WP:IDHT, and is certainly not productive. BigK HeX (talk) 15:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You also said above that climategate was not the most commonly used term, and when asked what was did not in fact give a reply, would you care to tell me what your research came up with on this? 18:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I, in fact, did give a reply. That you don't understand my reply is not my fault. User:Hipocrite already put it into bite-sized terms for you above, and you still don't seem to grasp the concept. Even if there were more I could say to enlighten you, given your comments here, I have no desire to do much to dignify your tendentious approach to this issue. BigK HeX (talk) 18:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

No you did not, you blustered. You said your research proved climategate was not the name used by the majority of sources, so please tell me the name they are using mark nutley (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

No prob. Thanks. BigK HeX (talk) 04:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

KiK SPI

From everything I've seen, KiK is in Australia, and when he's using IP's, they all geolocate there. That second IP on the report is definitely him though - although we must be seriously frustrating him, given the language and tone. Always nice to close another door on him! Ravensfire (talk) 14:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. He does seem terribly frustrated! I think it's finally starting to dawn on him that none of his "important" information will be allowed to stand. It only took him this long to realize what any sane person would have noticed 2 years ago. lol BigK HeX (talk) 15:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Your analysis of behavior is as bad as your economic predictions (or your sexual predilections). Ha ha ha! I can rhyme and shoot out caustic insults at the very same time. I play with my prey. - NoHopeInFiatMoneyWorld (talk) 12:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Titles

What's up with the revert at WP:Titles? I didn't change policy... I reverted a change to policy. I presume you did not fully realize what is happening here, and was happening, long before I showed up.

The wording I replaced has been established for some time. Here, for example, is a link to the July 23 version which has the "When other criteria do not indicate an obvious choice, consider giving similar articles similar titles" wording. Ah, it looks like it was introduced back on June 23rd.

Anyway, today, without establishing consensus, PMA suddenly changed it. That's a fine bold move, but then it was immediately reverted by PBS, which is normal WP:BRD stuff, and should have gone to the talk page, except then PMA reverted again, so that's when I reverted him. At that time we were back to status quo, but that's when you reverted me, ironically with the comment requesting, "please do not try to change policy without consensus"! What's up with that? Now PMA reverted again, pushing 3RR. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I may have misunderstood the edit comments. I'll look into it more deeply. Thanks! BigK HeX (talk) 02:07, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything that changes my understanding. I still see that Philip Shearer is trying to change policy without consensus. BigK HeX (talk) 02:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Really? That wording was there from June 23 to August 10 before it was changed yesterday, without consensus, by PMAnderson. Anyway, discussion in now ongoing on the talk page of WP:TITLE. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Libertarianism poll

I'm really trying to find some common ground. Already interesting is that Xero did not list 3 (there are reliable sources for the general/broad meaning of libertarianism) as a point that he agrees with, but he listed all of the others. If he holds onto this position, that's looking more and more like obstinacy, because, as you know, there are such sources. But at least he cooperated and showed his cards. Please show good faith and participate too. Thanks --Born2cycle (talk) 01:07, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC Teeninvestor

Please comment on what I have posted here. --Tenmei (talk) 20:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

libertarian principles

I do not see any contradiction. Right-libertarians do not justify private property on Filmer's claim that the Lord gave the world to Adam and he has divided it among his descendants. Left-libertarians do not argue against private property on the basis of equality. Both believe that originally all land was held in common and that a man who tills common land is entitled to the fruits of his labor. Where they disagree is whether labor can alienate land from common ownership. I added in an example to clarify my comments. TFD (talk) 17:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Too busy on the 'socialist libertarian agenda' to correct your own illiterate edits

Austrian School, footnote 23. Fix it, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.73.151.2 (talk) 02:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC) And footnote 55. I suppose as long as gold-related stuff is deleted you're happy, and you move on to censor stuff on Libertarianism.

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment

As you commented in the pending closure discussion I am notifying you that the Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment is now open and will be for two weeks, discussion as required can continue on the talkpage. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 23:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Libertarianism

Perhaps you could give me a short summary of the debate, so I know why I'm getting such a not nice response? I feel like I've just leapt headfirst into a warzone. Zazaban (talk) 05:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hah ... your instincts are finely tuned. I haven't exactly figured out all of the POV myself, but for the most part there is a cadre of editors who like to soapbox about The True Meaning of libertarianism, reliable sources be damned. One of them doesn't even care to edit the article or directly suggest any alterations --- just comes onto the talk page to endlessly wax philosophic about ... I guess Orwell is the newest subject, for whatever unfathomable reason. Basically, he and a few other editors think Libertarianism means absolutely nothing other than their own ill-defined conception of the term, and think that any of the other prominent understandings found in RS's should be stripped from the article. Apparently, among all of the articles of political ideology, such as liberalism/socialism/etc, which have to cover a fair range of topics due to the varying understandings of the relevant term, the Soapboxers would like to see the Libertarianism wiki "cleansed". Ultimately, I think those editors know that they aren't going to win any battles against the RS's they're up against, so -- for the most part -- they've consigned themselves to just spreading WP:TRUTH on the talk page. One of the editors that you've witnessed has probably violated WP:NOTAFORUM so repeatedly and blatantly, that I've almost concluded that it merits either an ANI or RFC/USER. That editor also seems to have a deep disdain for "socialism" (and possibly even all things "leftist"), and I'm almost convinced the editor has not a clue what they really entail. BigK HeX (talk) 05:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Oy vey. That's probably a good idea. I recently added the page to my watchlist, so I suppose I'll be sticking around. Good to meet you. Zazaban (talk) 05:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Nice to have another editor around! I wouldn't worry too much about the particular editor you've crossed paths with. That particular one is Mostly Harmless. Feeding that troll gives it power, so it may work to just try to avoid actually engaging with any of the content he posts if you can help it. Admittedly, sometimes the rants are so ridiculous as to be unavoidable troll-bait though. BigK HeX (talk) 06:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I know the type. I was a member of an anarchist forum for a couple of years that contained both class-war communists and anarcho-capitalists- death threats all over the place. Now I tend to react to that kind opinionated ranting with wry amusement, I certainly can't take it too seriously. Then I stop suffering it and notify somebody who can deal with it properly. Zazaban (talk) 06:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I think most of them are minarchist, I-don't-really-understand-it, Tea Party types. One of them might lean more an-cap. And ... yeah. If it goes on for much longer, I'll have to seek a bit of intervention. BigK HeX (talk) 06:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably a good idea sooner rather than later, alarms should go off as soon as Orwell references start getting brought in, and that was over a week ago. Zazaban (talk) 07:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

We now have D's admittance of past and future Meat Puppetry in a talk page where he jollies with an infamous sock puppet. As I note at Sock Puppetry page, the alleged processes for dealing with Meats is not made explicit. Do you know? Whatever it is, it's time to proceed, starting with D. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I was actually wondering that myself, amidst that jolly discussion that went on. I'll do a bit of research myself, and see what I turn up. BigK HeX (talk) 04:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

hi all, in case d means me, cite your admission of meatpuppetry, otherwise i will go so far as to call you a liar this time carol, not just misplacing facts, times dates, as in the past, but now you are simply lying. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure if there is the slightest misunderstanding of what I read, I will catch it when/if action is initiated and make any relevant adjustments. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

misunderstanding, your making it up. in the past i let it go, you misread a time, or go pages confused, but now either cite your example, or own up to being a liar. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

can you show me where in talk it was decided to remove the tags? Darkstar1st (talk) 05:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The RfC has decided that the article's inclusion of topics is appropriate. We can conclude that it is NOT "incoherent." BigK HeX (talk) 05:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Since this debate specific to the article, why not move to that talk page. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Peter Schiff predictions

I've done a lot of work on his predictions and want to add more. I think summarizing his info is valuable. Why is my material unsuited for the page? Also, would it be OK under Wikipedia policies to make a "Peter Schiff's predictions" page for all my stuff outside of his main entry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Egermino (talk • contribs) 19:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

As Wikipedia is WP:NOT a "complete exposition of all possible details" or an "indiscriminate collection of information" articles need to stick to including only noteworthy info. A list of every prediction Schiff has ever made is unlikely to be acceptable to the Wikipedia community. That section started off a just a few predictions that had been discussed in news media and thus have some notability. I never intended that section to include every prediction he ever makes, no matter how obscure. You're more than welcome to add something to your user page at maybe User:Egermino/SchiffPredictions. If you're considering the creation of an actual Wiki article, then I doubt it would survive the deletion process. BigK HeX (talk) 20:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Partisan sources

I have proposed an edit for the mainspace of an important Wikipedia policy, the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources policy. Essentially, I believe that some sources are so partisan that using them as "reliable sources" invites more problems than they're really worth. You've previously participated in the RfC on this subject, or another related discussion indicating that you are interested in this important policy area. Please indicate here whether you support or oppose the proposed edit. The original discussion is here. Thanks. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Header on libertarian talk page

You may wish to remove the header 'Comments on the wording of the RfC' that you added to the talk page, as Darkstar has moved his comments above the header to directly beneath the question. Regards, LK (talk) 02:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

"generally"

Hello, a suggestion. From The Elements of Style, Strunk: "...the proper correction is likely to be not the replacement of one word or set of words by another, but the replacement of vague generality by definite statement". And also, "The writer who has a definite meaning to express will not take refuge in such vagueness." N6n (talk) 14:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! BigK HeX (talk) 15:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Or my favorite which I've always made a prime principle: “Eschew excess verbiage.” :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Years of debate have gotten me into a terrible habit of qualifying all of the assertions I write ... or may write... at least generally, anyways! lol  :-O BigK HeX (talk) 16:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess I still think of words as whips that you lash quickly and expertly. Geez, I should have a national opinion column, but I've always been a research ninny who overdoes it on research and takes forever to get anything out. But it tends to be crisp when it finally comes. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Heh ... we've seen uninformed opinion. I think I'd much rather have the informed one that may take a little longer! BigK HeX (talk) 01:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

@Carol, I have an extreme view on this issue:

There was an artist in the city of Kouroo who was disposed to strive after perfection. One day it came into his mind to make a staff. Having considered that in an imperfect work time is an ingredient, but into a perfect work time does not enter, he said to himself, It shall be perfect in all respects, though I should do nothing else in my life. He proceeded instantly to the forest for wood, being resolved that it should not be made of unsuitable material; and as he searched for and rejected stick after stick, his friends gradually deserted him, for they grew old in their works and died, but he grew not older by a moment. His singleness of purpose and resolution, and his elevated piety, endowed him, without his knowledge, with perennial youth. As he made no compromise with Time, Time kept out of his way, and only sighed at a distance because he could not overcome him. Before he had found a stock in all respects suitable the city of Kouroo was a hoary ruin, and he sat on one of its mounds to peel the stick. Before he had given it the proper shape the dynasty of the Candahars was at an end, and with the point of the stick he wrote the name of the last of that race in the sand, and then resumed his work. By the time he had smoothed and polished the staff Kalpa was no longer the pole-star; and ere he had put on the ferule and the head adorned with precious stones, Brahma had awoke and slumbered many times. But why do I stay to mention these things? When the finishing stroke was put to his work, it suddenly expanded before the eyes of the astonished artist into the fairest of all the creations of Brahma.

(Thoreau, Walden) I think you are doing a fine job. N6n (talk) 15:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Neoliberalism

Neoliberalism's definition is very misleading, as it's practice very much depends on the State. What is called "neoliberalism" in actual practice has nothing to do with the free market. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.78.64.105 (talk) 10:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Economics Newsletter (Issue IV)

Positively Economics The Economics WikiProject Newsletter Issue IV (September 2010)
Use the show/hide button to display or hide this newsletter. From the editor After a brief intermission over the Northern hemisphere summer season and the Southern hemisphere's mid-winter, Positively Economics is back. In recent weeks it has been my privilege to work on countering systemic bias with a couple of articles on the economic history of Uganda. Projects like these help, little by little, to open up new areas on knowledge to Western audiences. Indeed, with English in the ascendancy when it comes to second languages, many other audiences too. Both of the new creations made the front page via the Did you know? section for newly-created or significantly expanded articles. I would encourage other editors, particularly those who like badges, to try to get more economics articles onto the front page through this and other sections. Those with a particularly competitive bent might also wish to consider signing up for the 2011 Wikicup (great for focussing the mind). - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 18:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC) Example chart New bot User:LivingBot has just been approved on Wikimedia Commons to compile and upload SVG graphs based on monthly time series of, for example, UK interest rates (illustrated). It will then revisit these on a monthly basis to update them with the latest information. If you would like to bot to create and update a graph for you, get in touch with its operator. Articles of note New featured articles: None New featured lists: None New featured topics: None New good articles: Jevons paradox Redlinks to be squashed Skysmith has posted an updated list of missing economics topics. Most will need redirecting or new articles written to blueify them, so, if you can lend a hand with the effort, please do. There are some from virtually all areas of economics and hence to suit all tastes. Project news Unassessed articles: A whole swath of articles have been added to the WikiProject recently, mainly on notable economists. They are yet to be assessed on their talk pages; this also provides a good opportunity to check and improve some of our least monitored articles. Unsourced BLPs: Before the articles about economists were added, the project had very few unsourced biographies of living people; now there are a little over a hundred. If we can clear them, however, then it is unlikely that there will be many more. Again, they represent some of our least cared-for articles, and often present good targets for cleaning up. Your comments are invited in the following other ongoing project discussions and requests for help: Vanderford-Riley well-being schedule New Economic Indicator for Infoboxes Beth Hayes
To start/stop receiving this newsletter, please add/remove your name from the list here. Thank you. This newletter was delivered to you by User:Jarry1250 at around 19:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Gninviv

		Civility Award
		Thank you for remaining WP:Civil during our debate about Pending Changes. In the view of a worthy opponent, may the best perspective win! Gniniv (talk) 09:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks :blush: BigK HeX (talk) 09:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thoughts

Well, considering that this is someone with whom you've obviously squared off against in the past, it's certainly interesting as a kind of opposition research I suppose. I would not want this kind of discussion on my talk page if I were Darkstar1st and I certainly wouldn't respond (but that's just me personally).

You say you believe this person is banned? Banned, not just blocked. If that's the case, then I'd simply pursue a WP:RBI strategy. Ignore the commentary, file sockpuppet checks at WP:SPI when you suspect this person is editing again under another account, and revert his contributions. Banned users' contributions can be reverted on sight, whether they are "good" or "bad." (However, before you engage in this kind of blanket reverting, you need to be sure that it's indeed that person -- sure enough that another reasonable and uninvolved person would agree with your conclusion, which is why I suggested SPI). Good luck, they certainly seem to have spent a lot of time thinking about how to game the system. — e. ripley\^talk 14:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course, not sure how much I helped but always happy to take a shot. As an aside, it certainly does not look good to me that Darkstar1st is engaging a banned user in this manner, but that's his prerogative on his talk page I suppose. — e. ripley\^talk 14:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

FYI. The AnonIP admits he is a sock of someone, if not explicitly KarmaisKing. User_talk:Darkstar1st#Warning_on_Meat_Puppetry.2FCozying_up_to_known_sock_puppets See my warning here. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I opened a pretty incompetent sockpuppet investigation on both User:114.73.173.184 who admitted he was a sock (probably Karmisking) to you on Darkstar's page. And also User:125.7.71.6 [here] and he (and i'm sure it is) immediately started User:ShadowMan4444. Guess I should have done one at a time. It looks pretty messy but hopefully will have some effect. If you can figure out how to improve it, feel free. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Libertarianism incoherence tag

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Libertarianism, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Karmaisking

These are unquestionably the same user. All the technical data I'm seeing matches the other blocked accounts perfectly. Unless there's two different people behind the same keyboard, those three are Karmaisking. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Considering he has boasted about all the edits he's gotten away with, it sure would be nice if all those who had edited Libertarianism in last month could be checked, but I guess that would be casting too broad a net. Sigh... CarolMooreDC (talk) 07:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

An an analysis of other editors there do make three most recent registered users look rather suspicious, esp. one with most behavioral problems. Will keep my eyes open... CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Libertarianism

Hi, this looks liks a tricky bit, but there are several options that may be considered. If discussion with the user(s) in question really does fail, the basic choice is whether to concentrate on user conduct or dispute resolution on the substantive content issue. If the user(s) have demonstrated clear tendentious (which is seen as Wikipedia:Disruptive) behaviour, there is a good chance of having them banned for disruption (if the behaviour is clear, then it's possible to present evidence of it by collecting diffs). I'd recommend however (I admit I haven't followed the entire history here, I've mainly provided a few comments to the RFCs) to assume good faith on the part of the other users and proceed with dispute resolution. As you've already tried RFCs then asking for a third opinion or going to a noticeboard may not help much, and your next stop could be WP:Mediation. There are two kinds of mediation, informal and formal with recommendations to go for informal first. Mediation is voluntary and you can't drag people into it. --Dailycare (talk) 19:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Libertarian socks and other disruptive elements

Boy, what a mess you seem to be involved in. Seems to me like the only way to stem the disruptions would be topic bans for a couple editors.... Yworo (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, yes. Some editors don't seem to care about WP:DUE. Thanks for all your work with taking down KiK's posts. It's almost like you've got a radar to find him wherever he goes. You'll have to tell me your secret (off-wiki!) one day! BigK HeX (talk) 15:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is no secret, though if there were I'd be happy to fill you in off-wiki. It just boils down to having the right pages on my watchlist and happening to be focused on WP when the activity occurs. Yworo (talk) 15:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Ahh... well, you're pretty good at it. Thanks for the diligence! BigK HeX (talk) 17:17, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

requested sources for left libertarian supporting substantial redistribution of wealth.

[post moved to Libertarianism talk page]

BlueRobe

Friendly suggestion: *shhhhhh*. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Take a Step Back

Hey BigK, I saw your recent talk page activity here [5] and would like to ask you to take a few steps back and cool off. BlueRobe is blocked for a week, you've made your points at RfC and ANI and if you have an issue with Darkstar1st you should take it to a noticeboard, not the talk page of a blocked user. Obviously you and Darkstar don't see eye to eye and for the time being you should probably stay clear of this editor to limit disruption to the project. If Darkstar comes to your talk page or makes more personal attacks on you, elevate the situation by asking for review at ANI. I doubt mediation would work in this context, but you could also attempt it... but only if this continues after you make an honest effort to disengage.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 18:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict)

I readily concede that it's not the most appropriate forum for my comments to Darkstar1st. Though ... that is where the discussion originated. If it can be seen as inciteful to User:BlueRobe, then that is certainly not my intention. Perhaps I may need to rethink my policy of responding to a discussion on the user talk page which originates the discussion. BigK HeX (talk) 18:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with responding where a conversation starts, but I think it's good form to make sure it's started in the right place to begin with. Darkstar made a comment to BlueRobe, not to you. Although it was in reference to you it's nothing that Darkstar hasn't already said in several talk spaces, multiple time. An appropriate place to respond would have been Darkstar's talk page only referencing BlueRobe's in a link. But even that seems overkill and I don't want to encourage interaction between you two at this time. Thank you for taking the advice at face value.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 18:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar1st

You've provided ZERO evidence that User:BlueRobe was "harassed" in any undue fashion. BigK HeX (talk) 18:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

bigk, maybe he did just lash out on his own, but couldn't you give him a little space for now? Darkstar1st (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

My comments are about you. Your accusations have been made repeatedly and yet with zero evidence. If you're going to continue to suggest that editors were "harassing" User:BlueRobe, then it'd be prudent to have evidence ready. If you have no evidence then it's probably prudent to stop saying it. I'm telling you this here, as there is less scrutiny on you, but I did not appreciate your unsupported accusations in BlueRobe's RfC, either. BigK HeX (talk) 18:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

you have copied my comment from another's user page, please remove the above comment from your page. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Grammar issues at PC proposal

Also feel free to stipulate that the GA stuff at WP:MED will take place in a trial as proposed.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar1st is a sockpuppet

Note similar obscure reference to a letter to Proudhon used on User_talk:Apollon by User:RJII and on Talk:Libertarian_socialism by User:Darkstar1st —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.93.143.122 (talk) 22:10, 10 September 2010 (UTC) i am no mans puppet, sock or otherwise, you however an anonymous ip, so i suggest bigk restrict his page so people like you no longer edit here. since bigk deletes anon ip he assumes are sockpuppets off my page, i will assume you are as well, and delete you from here. Darkstar1st (talk) 10:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Libertarianism

Regardless of the issue, please keep in mind WP:3RR. You appear to have gone well beyond it on this talk page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. (I was pretty sure the bright-line 3RR wasn't crossed though. I had edits that were responses to legitimate threads, but maybe you're counting all of my edits in there yesterday.....?) In any case, yes, the reversions were getting pretty excessive. BigK HeX (talk) 11:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

my education, your contradiction

how would an educated person decipher the difference between these statements? "actually geolibertarianism is considered left-libertarian" and "WHERE ARE THE RELIABLE SOURCES THAT SUPPORT YOUR SUGGESTION THAT "GEOLIBERTARIANISM IS PRETTY MUCH THE SAME THING AS 'LEFT-LIBERTARIANISM" for the purposes of this lone debate, i will allow us both to break our disengagement truce, to battle out this one minor point. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Well ... do you feel you are educated on Geolibertarianism and Left-Libertarianism? BigK HeX (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

more than i ever wanted to be on the many groups using the term libertarian, but would you explain the differences in the 2? Darkstar1st (talk) 18:51, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you direct me to the best references you know of on Geolibertarianism and the best ones on Left-lib? BigK HeX (talk) 19:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

ok, i give, you win this time. geo-lib is considered ll, but is not pretty much the same. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Ahh.... good work. I hope this example helps you to realize that I have not been trying to insult you, and really am trying to help you make better edits. BigK HeX (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

well you could help me by explaining what you meant in the above? do you mean they are similar, but not so much that they could be combined on the dis ambig page? do you mean that one is a form of the other, but diff in some ways? i have yet to be insulted by u, and actually enjoy our debates Darkstar1st (talk) 20:46, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I've run across works that consider the left-lib movement to breakdown further into libertarian groups such as: agorism, geolib, mutualism, libertarian socialism and a few other ideas. So, Geolib is considered to be a left-lib idea, but it is not the same thing as left-libertarianism .... just as IBM systems are a form of computer, but "IBM system" and "computer" are not the same thing. (Which is what you seem to already have said above, and what I tried to get you to see a few weeks ago.) BigK HeX (talk) 21:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

ok, so why have the group LL, and it's sub-groups on the dis am page for libertarianism. why not just have LL, and let that dis am page break down the varieties of LL? and what do LL believe that geo do not, is there a difference between the 2, if so what? Darkstar1st (talk) 21:54, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

A lot of the libertarian subgroups (left and right) were on the disambig page. I objected to you removing a single subgroup under the rationale that "the two were the same," which was inaccurate. I don't have much of an opinion on whether all the subgroups should stay or go.

As for "what do LL believe that geo do not" ... seems like an odd question. Going back to my previous analogy, that'd be like asking me "what do computers have that IBM systems do not". BigK HeX (talk) 22:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

so why have a separate sub group, if all geo are actually LL, why not just call them LL? there must be some reason they have a separate name, but, you and i appear to be unaware of that reason or unable to articulate the reason given our education, should you discover how, please share here. Darkstar1st (talk) 10:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I've already described the relationship.... BigK HeX (talk) 10:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

where exactly have your explained why geo use a different term? what is a geo that a LL is not? Darkstar1st (talk) 11:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Please review the thread. It isn't that long. BigK HeX (talk) 11:49, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

i have, and all you did was state your claim differently, you have yet to supply a single difference geo, from LL. "Geolib is considered to be a left-lib idea, but it is not the same thing as left-libertarianism" Darkstar1st (talk) 11:52, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind. I see you're not discussing this in good faith, and that you don't seem to grasp some of the concepts involved, anyways. Good luck on your future serious research endeavors (should you actually ever make any). Cheers! BigK HeX (talk) 11:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

i presented my case on the ll talk as to why they are similar from sources on the geo and ll page. your comments are not permitted in the section you posted, instead it is reserved for how they are different. i suggest you fill a complaint if you feel i violated wpforum, additional disruptions will be deleted. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Libertarianism

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages, as you did to Libertarianism. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Toa Nidhiki05 17:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

You're getting pretty close to blatantly disruptive behavior. Though ... since you bothered to waste time on this, post diffs of my alleged "soapboxing". Thanks BigK HeX (talk) 17:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Your blatantly promotional adds of Libertarian socialism without consensus:

• [6]
• [7]

This is no less unjustified than the two warnings your buddies gave to BlueRobe and Darkstar1st. Toa Nidhiki05 17:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually both those edits are cited to Sapon etal 2010, which contains material directly connected to the statement. Fifelfoo (talk) 06:01, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Lib... oh, you know ;)

I make the same offer to yourself as Toa; allow me to try and reign in this entire discussion (though I will not be commenting on the content, deliberately). Avoid anything except content and sources and I will try to address any other matters. If it doesn't work out we can look to other steps - perhaps formal mediation. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 19:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I have a sneaking suspicion that nothing short of the BanHammer will be respected. Since you're making a very gracious offer (perhaps, more headache than you realize!), I'll leave the off-topic commentary to you for at least the next few days. If the amount of OR is successfully curbed, you'll have my undying gratitude (and a sure nom for adminship when you feel you're ready!). Thanks for your efforts. Good luck! BigK HeX (talk) 19:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Please read

Please read this; I am willing to compromise with you. And please do not accuse me of soapboxing. Toa Nidhiki05 02:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Sources

Most editors here have seen me post the list that I compiled a rather large number of times. The closed-RfC references the source list that I compiled.; I am being blind. I scanned the RFC but cannot see the list of sources or a link to it.. where do I need to look? :)

Are you going to either strike or properly source your assertion about "right libertarianism being what the overwhelming majority of scholars/public mean"? I know how you feel about this... but it's not overly constructive demanding it to be struck. While Blues wording is strong he has provided sources which support parts of his view; so I think the best approach is to refute them with sources if possible.

I take it from the lack of any being available there is no source discussing the scholarly consensus? that is annoying (there, sadly, never usually is in my experience) it would be a short cut :P --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 14:05, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

BlueRobe's wording is unsupportably strong. I don't think any reasonable reading of a phrase like "better known" can be legitimately used to support "overwhelming majority." Conceding one's errors (or at least inability to source a particular belief) is an important part of growth as an editor.....

As for tertiary sources on academic consensus ... so far as I can tell, there may not be any. My own personal WP:OR on the matter seems to reveal that one of the biggest impediments may be a language bias. Contemporary left-libertarianism seems mostly centered in non-English speaking countries, and may even be the dominant form of libertarianism in many of those countries. I've found non-RS evidence of this idea, but nothing usable in WP yet. BigK HeX (talk) 14:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

As for the list of sources, check Talk:Libertarianism/Archive_19#RFC:_Should_this_page_discuss_only_right-libertarianism.3F ... and look at my "Broad" !vote. It's wikilinked there (something like "unrefuted sources" or something like that). One of the vocal minority apparently had intentions of challenging the sources... but .... gave up?? BigK HeX (talk) 14:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

It's best to bring these concerns to the talk page where several of us can encourage you to go back through hundreds of pages of archives to see the same "deletionist" points refuted over and over again. (I automatically move such things there myself.)

By the way, what ref's besides Rands and a list of Libertarian parties did BlueRobe provide? Yesterday I went through whole current talk page and that's all I found. Don't answer here. Will look again and ask at the article talk page if I see more discussion of these sources I can't seem to find. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Warning

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Libertarianism. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

See this edit. Suspecting it's a banned user is not enough. --Born2cycle (talk) 05:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

What a great game.. lemme try!

Reasonably suspecting it's a banned user IS enough. BigK HeX (talk) 05:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we need to copy images of the Geolocate page of five or six of KIK's last comments like this one so that others will see how clear the pattern is. Stick it on a web page somewhere and link to it every time. Or at least links to the last few geolocate pages. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it's far better to Deny Recognition to KiK. I deleted the thread, since I'm more than happy to have my actions validated at ANI, if needed. If there's an ANI or something, then I could post evidence, but placing notifications on the talk page designed especially for KiK would only encourage that banned editor's disruption. BigK HeX (talk) 13:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it is good to warn people this might be a sock puppet with evidence. Such as a link to Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Karmaisking and even a special talk page that has links to KIK's last few socks on Talk:libertarianism. It's a good lesson for people new to/inexpert at dealing with socks. (Remember the nitpick WP:ANI for my inexpert accusation before I discovered Geolocators. He must have loved that!) That's minimal attention for him but education for others and a defense against warnings like this one. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Most of the editors who would care about the deletion of KiK's threads are the ones who would agree with him, so it's pointless to warn them. Hell ... come to think of it, hasn't KiK been all over their talk pages, with them high-fiving each other? BigK HeX (talk) 13:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure it was him. Here's an example of recent edits from KiK's known range [8]. That's clearly him. But the most recent IP range has a completely different editing pattern [9]. Yworo (talk) 13:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

It was him. I've got diffs that would likely make the case indisputable. I'm pretty judicious in my accusation of sockpuppetry, but KiK and I have tangled for years now. I consider myself pretty familiar with the intruder. BigK HeX (talk) 13:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Related question couldn't get answer to after a search. Why can't we find out location of registered users with Geolocate, only with check user? A technical issue or some wikipolicy. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia carries a policy of anonymity to protect ones identity/location. So the IP addresses that usernames access from are not provided publicly. There are various privacy rules that govern this as well. So a combination of the two :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 15:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reminder. That's why wikiscanner's (outdated) checkuser is so naughty ;-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict × looks like you got an answer already though) Some wikipolicy. I'd guess it's the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. Seems it'd be easy to produce a tool that is more accessible without the privacy concenrs, though. BigK HeX (talk) 15:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

By its language the deleted comment was obviously by the banned User:Karmaisking. N6n (talk)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs The Great Moderation Peter Kenen Jesús Huerta de Soto Sirloin steak Excess supply Monetary base The Conscience of a Conservative Sir Bagby Dennis Robertson Ogalur Nick Gillespie Countercyclical Economic expansion Leonard Read Complete economic integration Brian Doherty (journalist) Mary Kenny Theory of value (economics) A Monetary History of the United States

Cleanup Free banking Tea Party protests Limited government Merge Contractionary monetary policy Nationalism Liberal nationalism Add Sources Fascism Right-wing politics Nature's services Wikify Welfare William Adama Real bills doctrine Expand Endogenous money General glut Conservatism

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 21:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

IP range

I'm a long-time Wikipedian with no history of vandalism. BigK HeX (talk) 16:40, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Further note: I believe my IP may be dynamic, but hopefully I won't be too much trouble. BigK HeX (talk) 16:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

If you'd like, I could enquire of Brandon about giving you an IP block exemption. I can't release that IP block as a normal administrator, but an IPBE would allow you to edit through an ip block as if you were an administrator. Syrthiss (talk) 16:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Is that something that would only apply to this Registered Account? Or would it be something that vandals could abuse as well? If it's something that still keeps the vandals on the IP range at bay, then I'd be cool with that [read: very appreciative], if it's not too much trouble. BigK HeX (talk) 16:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It would only apply to this account. The IP itself will remain blocked. Essentially, it makes it so that nobody can accidentally block you. To block you, they have to block this account deliberately. I'll drop a note on Brandon's page and make sure he's ok with it. Syrthiss (talk) 17:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Ahh... sounds cool. Thanks for your efforts on this matter! Hopefully, Brandon's response will be as quick as yours  :) BigK HeX (talk) 17:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Since he hasn't edited since the end of August, I also dropped a copy on Jpgordon's page as well. Hopefully we'll hear from one of them soon. Syrthiss (talk) 17:09, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

FellGleaming

I'm not sure whether you are aware of this, but it makes interesting reading. Yworo (talk) 01:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the Libertarianism article just got more lively [how is that possible?!]. I guess we'll see. It's good that you're able to continue contributing. Having the opinion of uninvolved editors is an immense help BigK HeX (talk) 01:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I am so tempted to just take it off my watchlist, but won't for now... though I see no end in sight... Yworo (talk) 01:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Seems FG is now up for a community ban discussion. Yworo (talk) 20:47, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Time to chill out a little bit

Your edit summaries are getting a bit heated. Time to have a nice cup of tea, a bex, and a good lie down before finalising edits. Take the chance to read over the edit summary before hitting enter, and think what your grandfather, aunt, or child would think on the receiving end of such a summary. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

For your advisement to be helpful here, you'll have to be specific as I really have no idea which edit summaries you could be referring to.... BigK HeX (talk) 02:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant this edit summary on Libertarianism. The heat seemed to be in the double and triple emphatics (caps, **double bolding**). It certainly isn't uneditorial heat, but calm authority helps improve the article climate; and, editorial heat can lead to personal heat. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Dunno ... emphasis seemed appropriate, since the previous edit comment requesting talk page discussion went ignored. Perhaps, you're right though. BigK HeX (talk) 02:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

plz take the high road for the sake of the article, your last post is a response to an editor, nothing to do with the article. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

BlueRobe's continuing disruption

I've started an AN/I posting but don't have time to finish it now. I've documented all the warnings. All it needs now is documentation of the incivility and personal attacks. The draft is here. Feel free to complete and post to AN/I. If not, I will work on it when I get back. Yworo (talk) 00:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, when I warned BlueRobe, I placed a copy of the diff as part of the warning. Additionally, your draft isn't correct right now, he did respond to a number of warnings; the responses which stick in my mind were rejection out of hand. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:43, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Ahh.... coincidentally, I was going to draft a report in the next couple of hours. I should be able to finish it up for you, Yworo. BigK HeX (talk) 00:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Email

You don't seem to have an email link. Could you add one to your profile? I have something I think you should know that's not ready for public comment. Yworo (talk) 20:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to set one up. It'll have to be later though. On the road right now. BigK HeX (talk) 00:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

No prob, it's not urgent. Yworo (talk) 14:57, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Say, any chance you could do this soon? The info gets more pertinent as things continue to develop. Yworo (talk) 21:14, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing. Gimme 1 sec. BigK HeX (talk) 21:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Got it. I rather expected you to register an email in your Wikipedia profile, but this will do just as well. I have some errands to run, but will email you in a bit. Yworo (talk) 22:24, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

IBCR, LVMI and adding purposeful, beneficial and insightful material to the economics and the Austrian economics articles

Why are you so concerned with IBCR and the think tank labeled in the articles of 10 years ago, but now published by the Mises Institute? Would you not be more concerned with the content of the material and acknowledge that it is a reliable source and has been published and reproduced throughout academia?

The Prehistory of Modern Economic Thought: The Aristotle in Austrian Theory - http://mises.org/journals/scholar/Ptak1.pdf

Action, Coordination, and Exchange: Voluntary Response to External Stimuli - http://mises.org/journals/scholar/Ptak2.pdf

PraxisConsensus (talk) 16:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

What am I supposed to be finding in those links?

In any case, why are you so enamored of a document that seems to be so obscure? BigK HeX (talk) 16:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Born2cycle has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can Spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

This is to commend you for your diligence in making sure article content adheres to what is supported in reliable sources that are not obscure. Good job, and thank you! --Born2cycle (talk) 22:54, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully the issues will be hashed out! It'd be good to see that we can disagree agreeably. BigK HeX (talk) 23:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Here's the incident report I submitted regarding you deleting my comments from the libertarianism talk page. Xerographica (talk) 01:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Observation

Man, some of these editors are certainly prone to self-destruction. It's like watching a slow-motion train wreck. Must pull myself away and go watch a DVD or something... Yworo (talk) 04:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed! What was it you pointed out once... "Shoot ... self ... foot"  :) BigK HeX (talk) 04:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you believe this shite? Yworo (talk) 19:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It does seem to border on tendentious (and I mean "border" in the same way as the KAL 007 pilots). Born2Cycle is one of the most congenial of those sharing that objections of the vocal minority ... so, I won't push very hard on this one. But, this probably is the last one that I can stomach. BigK HeX (talk) 19:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Chuckle. Seems to me it's getting to be user conduct RfC time. I've dropped a note on Georgewilliamherbert's talk page, so let's see if he has any comment first, though. Yworo (talk) 19:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. He mentioned he'd help keep an eye out for possible trouble. BigK HeX (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

If this ain't trouble, I don't know what is. :-) Yworo (talk) 19:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

libertarianism

I'm not sure I want to vote per se. I'd like my point to be addressed, and I don't really think this is an issue that ought to be up for a vote. john k (talk) 20:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Roger. I don't think there's much policy justification for it myself. Thanks. BigK HeX (talk) 20:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

re User:BlueRobe

If they remove comments from their talkpage it should be assumed that they have read it - there is no point in reverting such removals, and is strongly discouraged. WP:TPOC is the page, for future reference. I am also removing the personal attack by BlueRobe. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

So you did. My mistake, but one that hopefully reminds you to be more careful - in case of any other inattentive readers - when posting; if it is new, don't revert and amend. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

since blue is banned, and now likely to not even be able to use his talk page, would you consider not commenting on his talk again unless you are issuing a warning? you comments only antagonize blue, and you really have nothing more to do there. several editors have supported the idea of you not having interaction with blue on his talk, it is clear you and he will not be able to have constructive discussion, and your efforts are not helping progress, rather contributing to the disruption indirectly. Darkstar1st (talk) 11:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Please stop trying to excuse Blue's behavior, Darkstar. Blue's being blocked was due solely to Blue's actions. The blocking of the talk page was due to a gratuitous personal attack against two editors ... posted before BigK HeX responded to it. Since that comment was quite abusive towards BigK HeX, it's unreasonable to ask BigK HeX not to respond, and as for baiting, in that case it was clearly Blue doing the baiting. I personally believe Blue should be community banned. Yworo (talk) 17:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a moot point now. BigK HeX (talk) 19:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Reverted

[10] can you please expalin on the article talk page why you did this revert thanks mark nutley (talk) 16:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Two kinds of left lib and right lib

In the outline I'm trying to distinguish the two forms of left/right-libertarianism used in sources. They're very different.

In some sources LL is used as a synonym for lib socialism, and to distinguish from the US form of lib (for lack of a better term) which is referred to as RL.

But in other sources the US form is subdivided into RL and LL to distingish the minarchist from the A-Cs, reflecting whether the ideologies are coming from the political left or right. This LL is very different from LS.

I thought geolibertarians, mutualists, green libertarians are all basically the libertarian socialist type of left-libertarian, which is why I put them in that section, rather than the Rothbardian type of A-C left-libertarian. --Born2cycle (talk) 20:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be an accurate understanding of left-libertarianism, so I suspect that it's either a very obscure usage of the term "left lib" (possibly only existent in blogs) or that you may have misread the source. AFAIK "left lib" is never used solely to distinguish anarchists from minarchists. BigK HeX (talk) 20:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Well that explains why you keep changing it. I'll try to find the solid sources, but any time A-C Karl Hess is referred to as a left libertarian is an example of that usage. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

here is one. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Alright ... that's a source that Karl Hess can be considered left-lib (though I strongly suspect that the description is outdated and only applicable to his time in the New Left movement). Still not really a source that ancap is left-lib. Here are a few sources indicating ancap as right-lib: [11], [12], [13]. It's quite conceivable that I could just have been missing something, but I've never heard ancap referred to as left-lib. BigK HeX (talk) 21:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

This source is explicit about usage:

By left-libertarianism I mean the position that Carson has described as agreeing “with the Greens and other left-wing decentralists on the evils to which they object in current society and on their general view of a good society,” but “with free market libertarians on their analysis of the cause of such evils and how to get from here to there,” or in summary form, “green ends with libertarian means.” (Carson 2009a, pp. 1-2) Or, in historical terms, I mean the movement that, while having its roots in the individualist anarchism of the 19th century (particularly such figures as Thomas Hodgskin, Lysander Spooner, Benjamin Tucker, and Voltairine de Cleyre), emerged or re-emerged in the 1960s through the rapprochement between libertarianism and the New Left (as represented by Murray Rothbard’s journal Left & Right, as well as the early years, at least, of its successor Libertarian Forum), was continued in the 1970s by Samuel Konkin’s “Movement of the Libertarian Left,” and broadened in recent years into the Alliance of the Libertarian Left. Left-libertarianism in this sense should not be confused with the more recent use of the term to describe the neo-Georgist position of such theorists as Peter Vallentyne, Hillel Steiner, and Michael Otsuka (though overlap between these two forms of left-libertarianism is certainly possible).

Source: http://praxeology.net/historical-justice.doc (Robert T. Long)

--Born2cycle (talk) 21:15, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

This, by the way, is exactly the kind of confusion I was talking about yesterday, and why we have to be wary of context. Whenever Robert T Long uses "left-libertarian" he means something quite different from what it is used for in other sources. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:32, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's much of a problem to reconcile the left-lib movements that Long describes. I'll have to read more there to see what distinctions Long finds between the two; I can think of one or two, but it doesn't seem hugely problematic. (As a side note: I'm not aware of ancap being associated with either sense of left-lib.) BigK HeX (talk) 21:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

For an association of A-C with one type of LL, see Karl Hess, and note that he is in both categories, and the sources support it. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

That's not evidence of association of ancap with LL. Please continue reading more about Hess so that you can understand why both categories have been applied to him. BigK HeX (talk) 00:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

[14]

I guess your not all bad. :P Toa Nidhiki05 20:26, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Must've been a full moon :oP

BigK HeX (talk) 21:12, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Methinks the sock drawer is open

User:BallaratMines - look at what gets mined in Ballarat, Victoria in Australia. The name is almost clever. Ravensfire (talk) 14:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, SPI filed. Ravensfire (talk) 14:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep... I assumed it was a sock, though I've been too lazy in the last few weeks to file the SPIs on-sight. BigK HeX (talk) 16:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not following you or anything. I came over to ask you something about the TPM, but the sock thing is intrigues me. How can this person possibly have that many socks and still be editing here?Malke 2010 (talk) 16:44, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome to visit my talk page anytime.

He seems to have a lot of free time -- possibly unemployable, which might be related to the evidence of delusional behavior shown here. In any case, when he's online it's easy for him to change up access. But, the Internet Service Provider has been bringing a fair amount of heat already forcing some inconvenience on him, so his days are numbered. BigK HeX (talk) 17:46, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

XD, he might well be unemployed due to that behavior.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

And another one found. Alas, the name is nowhere near as clever as the earlier one. And I'd thought Kik was showing some originality. He's returned to his uncivil ways of late, including his usual monologues. Why, we should create a Supervillian named Kik, who uses the Power of Austrianism to render his victim helpless!

@Malke 2010 - believe me, we'd love to know the answers to some those questions too! He comes across as fairly intelligent and extremely driven (see how long he's been doing this!), but uultimately unable to function in a group that doesn't immediately agree with his fews. There's probably only a few socks that can compete with Kik for longevity and persistence (ignoring the pure vandalism socks like Hagger) - maybe only Scibaby. Sigh, and I stumbled into it by accident, and now I'm too stubborn to leave. Ravensfire (talk) 14:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

To be fair

Since I said something to the other side, I need to point out that you were getting close to going over 3rr on Tea Party movement. While it's not as bad as Libertarianism, things can get hot and there are more than a few people willing to push things beyond the line. Stay cool, use the talk page and be aggressive about pulling other onto the talk page (post on their user talk if needed). Hate to see you get blocked over something that's ultimately pretty minor. Ravensfire (talk) 14:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Yep ... thanks. I noticed the brewing edit war there. I was pretty much done with the issue on my last edit. I figured that -- by then -- I had made my points on the talk page, and the more-involved editors there could weigh the sourcing issues. BigK HeX (talk) 16:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The conflict arose after properly worded and sourced content was removed from the article. Gradually over time, different editors began re-introducing small, incomplete portions of that content back into the article based only on limited sources. For example, you returned the content that conveyed Shuler heard slurs at the protest, which is technically correct. Other editors removed that content because they recalled something about Shuler's statements later being contested and corrected, which is also technically correct. Both sides of that story were once in the article. There is an interesting back-story to the whole Shuler thing, if you are interested, but you can get the gist of it from these 3 short articles:

• Within 48 hours of the protest, Shuler comments on the racial slurs, spitting and displays of anger.
• 3 weeks later, after AP quotes his previous comments, Shuler still confirms he was screamed at by protestors, and confirms he heard a number of racial remarks, but claims the only specific slur he discussed with the reporter was one directed at Frank.
• The following day, instead of issuing a retraction or a correction, the press reiterates that Shuler did indeed tell the reporter that he was walking with Cleaver when racial epithets were shouted, and says now he is "changing his story" and "distancing himself" from the comments he had previously made.

I guess politicians will be politicians, swaying whichever way the strongest winds blow. Anyway, I returned an accurate, albeit severely neutered, bit of that content back into the article. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Good info there. Thanks, Xeno! BigK HeX (talk) 21:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been paying attention to that section. I've been looking at the elections. I was thinking about maybe thinning out the racism section to make bullet points with specific incidents and do away with some of that counter arguments by the others were weren't even there. I was wondering what you thought of that. We worked before to pare down the media section, and I was thinking it might work again. Want to try it?Malke 2010 (talk) 01:42, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

The issues are so controversial, I think removing rebuttals and counterclaims could severely impact neutrality. especially from the point-of-view of Tea Party supporters. Not sure if there's a good solution there that would reduce the amount of text significantly. BigK HeX (talk) 02:11, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Not removing rebuttals, but thin it a bit so the salient points are easily found. I'm thinking of the reader showing up to and finding blocks of text, etc. Also, there's some redundancy that has accumulated over time, etc. Malke 2010 (talk) 11:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Keynesian Economics: Austrian School Criticism

I was wondering what your reasons were behind removing Where Keynes Went Wrong from the discussion about books using Austrian school criticism in the Keynesian economics article. Lewis's book updates Hazlitt, so it is relevant in that regard. It contains a clear exposition of what Keynes actually said and draws heavily on direct quotation (it's not only criticism of Keynes). Also, there is huge debate about stimulus and quantitative easing going on right now and Where Keynes Went Wrong provides arguments concerning these subjects (using both Keynes's arguments as well as criticism). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.4.71.135 (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Without much evidence of notability for the book, a major publishing press, any evidence of bestselling status, mainstream media attention, etc etc, incorporating material into an article based on that book looks WP:UNDUE, IMO. Feel free to discuss it on the article's talk page, as more opinions may be available there. BigK HeX (talk) 02:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

TPM

Hey there BigK, saw this today. Great edit summary. XD Malke 2010 (talk) 22:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Vandals are pretty funny sometimes. Might as well join them in the humor  :) BigK HeX (talk) 23:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-11-07/Tea Party movement

Hello. I have signed on to mediate this case. Please make your opening statements at this time. Thank you! Hamtechperson 00:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey Big K,

Please go to the project page here [15] and make your opening statement. It goes there and not on the talk page over there. Just giving everybody a heads up. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 01:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Hamtechperson 01:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC) This is a general notice.

Hello Big K,

Please go make your response to the mediation thing. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder! BigK HeX (talk) 19:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Saw your response. Some people don't like to be wordy. I do love that about you. And I wanted you to know that I'm still laughing. XD Malke 2010 (talk) 20:20, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi

Hi. I would just like to take a second to discuss your style of discussion of topics on wikipedia. I'm sure you can agree that you aren't the least abrasive editor on wikipedia. I'm getting increasingly frustrated with your comments, because I feel they are a major cause for these threads to continue ad infinitum. I am not trying to insult you here, I'm simply stating my viewpoint. I would like to know why you think that constant wikilawyering is the best way to reach a resolution. I understand you may disagree with things that other editors bring up, but I feel that we all need to exhibit good faith and positive encouragement to every editor. I believe that a simple logical explanation with Reissgo would have brought us to the conclusion either that 1. his assertions are not logically correct, or if consensus on that fails 2. that the sources are not clear enough about it or are insufficient.

It seems you approached the topic by coming out guns ablaze, throwing every possible argument out all at once (and multiple times at that). I find that this makes the discussion difficult to follow, and impossible to get consensus on. Again, I don't want to insult you, but It seems that in many cases, you assert that simply because you yourself object to an idea, that it shouldn't be further discussed. I truely don't understand why you are opposed to a nice, fair, calm discussion about things. Tell me what I'm not understanding here. I'm not a newb on wikipedia, and I've had my fair share of contentions with people. But I feel I have, for the most part, been quite fair in my comments, and you take all of them as hostile attacks.

I don't want to be your enemy. What can I do to help this situation? Fresheneesz (talk) 20:00, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to say. You seem to confuse my straightforward assessments of merit ["hey, that's not what the source says"] as being personal attacks or some form of incivility, so there's not a lot that I can do about that. (However, you may have noticed that between the two of us, only one of us has been asked to tone down incivil remarks by an outside editor.) I really do not hold any ill-will towards anyone on that talk page. I honestly am not trying to be mean, but I do have to be clear about my assessments. I think it's perfectly fine to be frank that you have to disagree with someone. Others may certainly take different approaches, though I hope you can come to accept this understanding of mine's!

In any case, I do believe that I have been as encouraging as possible, while still being blunt that Reissgo's assertions are poorly sourced, especially given their extraordinary nature.

As for "constant wikilawyering", I feel that is merely a function of the "constant poor sourcing". It seems you're eager to persevere in the discussion without any improvement in the sourcing, so I don't think it should be all that surprising that the "wikilawyering" on the sourcing has yet to change. However, the sourcing is currently a serious issue, and I don't feel the need to encourage the idea that we should use the article talk pages as forum for debating how we can synthesize assertions from poor sources.

As far as I can tell, there are pretty obvious flaws in the assertions of Reissgo that you have been backing. Sure, I could point them out explicitly, but that both encourages Reissgo to bring more poor sourcing for editors to straighten out in the future and also eliminates the opportunity for Reissgo to research the topic further and to, hopefully, expand his understanding on his own. I did engage in a bit of forum'ing by trying to point you guys in the right direction, when I brought up the short-term time deposits, and I'm fine with continuing the discussion on my user talk page. However, I do not feel that the discussion is appropriate on the article talk page at the moment, as it mostly amounts to "Everything you Know is Wrong -- Fringe Source".

In any case, I have no doubts that you mean well, and it seems that you feel some kinship with Reissgo (perhaps because of the shared Austrian economics sympathies), which is great for a new editor like that. I'm sure the topics can be resolved in a positive manner. BigK HeX (talk) 20:35, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

cabal thing

Hello BigK,

Please go over to the Mediation Cabal page and cast your !vote on the first proposals. It seems to me that Nillagoon's "First Proposal" is a really good one:[16], so in my “First Proposal” I suggested with we go with that one: [17]. Feel free to tweak as needed. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 19:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Time of year to give Thanks

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		To BigK HeX in appreciation of your efforts in working with others to build not only good articles, but in helping to make Wikipedia a truly [[WP:CIVIL}collegial community]]. Well done, my friend. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:59, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a ton! BigK HeX (talk) 22:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! Malke 2010 (talk) 03:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Tea Party movement

HeX, thanks for adding your proposal. As the second one to build on Nilla's, I think it represents a step forward in reaching a consensus.

I've gone ahead and critiqued it here. Dylan Flaherty 01:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey Hex. About the "Consensus for Lede" section on the discussion page, would you be opposed to moving/having moved your !Vote to the top of the section next to all the other votes? I'm asking some other editors with votes in the middle of the page the same thing. -Digiphi (Talk) 02:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

mediation cabal

Hi BigK, the mediator seems to have abandoned things, so I put Nillagoon's edit suggestion on the Tea Party movement talk page. We might as well have a larger consensus anyway. Hope you had a nice holiday. Malke 2010 (talk) 17:05, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Holidays are probably going to disrupt progress in mediation. I'd likely give it until Tuesday to see where we truly stand in mediation. Thanks for your huge effort in moving this thing forward. BigK HeX (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey BigK, apparently there's a referendum on the cabal page to decide if we should continue there. [18]. I said close because I felt that things are progressing over on the article talk page. We've got to have the wider consensus there anyway, and as we are getting to agreement on the other terms, I felt that having two discussions seemed disruptive. Anyway, go over there when you have time to comment. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 15:50, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Money multiplier 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—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reissgo (talk • contribs) 22:56, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Your efforts at trying to improve the encyclopedia are admirable, however, you may want to review the Arbitration guide again. This request is highly unlikely to get off of the ground. Again, I'll suggest that you tackle the sourcing problems. BigK HeX (talk) 23:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

IP 160

I don't know how familiar you are with the history of the user from 72.199.110.160 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). The editor(s) from this IP clearly have considerable knowledge of Rand/Objectivism and make many good edits (along with some that are clearly POV). But their major failing is that they resolutely avoid engaging in talk page discussion. They do attempt to explain themselves in edit summaries, but except for one brief interlude as a registered user (which edited for less than a month last year), they have avoided all participation in talk and project discussion pages. So if your intention ([19]) is to draw them into discussion, just be aware that others have tried before you and were frustrated. --RL0919 (talk) 20:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. A quick skim of the user talk page indicated I was unlikely to get a response, but I figure that every editor still deserves the courtesy of an edit warring warning. Thanks for the heads up! BigK HeX (talk) 20:52, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Notice of discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Discussion_of_Scope_at_Talk:Libertarianism Fifelfoo (talk) 00:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Libertarianism, you may be blocked from editing.

Per the collapse template description itself, collapsing comments in order to end discussion is only permissable when the comments are unambiguously disruptive. Since the question of whether the comments you are collapsing are disruptive is one of the issues in dispute at the ANI, these comments are obviously not unambiguously disruptive. Collapsing these discussions while this issue is unresolved at the ANI is a violation of the refactoring guideline. Your cooperation is appreciated. Thank you.

Understood. Though, I stand by my actions which were decided to be appropriate after long-running disruption. AFAIK, nothing has been overturned about it. BigK HeX (talk) 16:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents regarding resolving the appropriateness of collapsing comments to end discussion. The thread is Disruptive_collapsing_to_end_discussion_that_is_not_unambiguously_disruptive.The discussion is about the topic Talk:Libertarianism. Thank you.

100% reserve banking.

We seem to be equally baffled by each others position on 100% reserve banking. Can you please tell me where you have got your ideas about what 100% reserve banking is. Reissgo (talk) 20:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Not really sure. That would have been many years ago, but I'm sure I could dig up some of the more useful sources, if it'd help. It's good that you found Fisher's 100% Money. Most of the sources that you've presented don't really say anything contentious, but I have noticed that your representation of what they say seems at odds with their actual content; and it is your representation that have caused problems, especially where you have tried to shoe-horn in a tie to time deposits. In any case, you seem new to Wikipedia editing, so please understand that I'm more than willing to help you navigate the process, which, on occasion, can be quite daunting -- especially when the material is contentious.

On the current matter though, I think most of the issues stem from (what I find to be) an odd fixation that you express regarding time deposits. Your posts seem to suggest that you think that time deposits are a key to a full-reserve banking system; to me, this implies a likely fundamental misunderstanding of full-reserve banking. Pretty obviously, most of your edits stand in sharp contrast to the existing Wiki material, and what multiple editors regard as the viewpoint of the clear majority. Ultimately, this means that the burden to support your edits will fall upon you. I am curious as to what you understand to be fundamentally necessary for a full-reserve banking system and, even better, if you know the sources that support the thinking. BigK HeX (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I first came across 100% reserve banking and the link to time deposits while asking questions on the mises.org forum. I should point out that I am not an Austrian, but their forum is AFAIK the busiest economics forum on the web and you can get answers to questions very quickly. It seems that the Austrians have at various times been in favour of "free banking", a "gold standard" or "100% reserve banking (via the mechanism of time deposits)". Without time deposits, if someone puts their money in a bank and the bank have to keep all of it in reserve than the bank is simply acting as a vault. They will not be able to lend your money out and will be unable to act as financial intermediaries. The other sources I have come across are from positivemoney.org and perhaps a few blogs here and there that I have now forgotten. Part of the reason for my confidence about how 100% reserve banking works is simply the perfect logic of it. If the logic is blindingly obvious (to me) then I do not feel motivated to seek out dusty old books at $100 a pop to confirm what I already know. One thing I have deduced is that in older texts they sometimes use the phrase "savings accounts" to mean time deposits - though the precise meaning of this has morphed over the years. The gist of a savings account is that it is that there is supposed to be some disincentive to take money out of it at short notice. You can't just go and buy things at the shops with money in your savings account (unlike a demand deposit). But the exact form of disincentive is often left undefined. For true 100% reserve banking the disinsentive must be "turned up to max", i.e. the saver can not get his money out at all till his notice period is served. I am keen to hear more about your understanding of what 100% reserve banking is and where you got your information. Reissgo (talk) 09:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. It seems as if I am probably correct about the odd fixation with deposits, but I have maybe four questions for you that can clear things up for me. Then, I think we'll be in a position to get you better sources than the misinformation from mises.org. Let's start with this:

1) If a bank has ONLY $100 in demand deposits by Adam and $250 in demand deposits by Ben, how much does the bank need to hold in reserves in a full-reserve system? If your answer is $350, then I'd be grateful if you typed out a very quick explanation of why it would be that number. BigK HeX (talk) 13:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

In a full reserve system loans can not be made from demand deposits at all. The bank are required to keep all $350 in their vaults ready for Adam and Ben to take out at any time. The banks will probably make a charge for looking after Adam & Ben's money. Reissgo (talk) 14:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

But ... why does the bank have to hold $350 in your understanding? BigK HeX (talk) 14:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Because it is not their money.

In a full reserve system loans can not be made from demand deposits at all. The bank are required to keep all $350 in their vaults ready for Adam and Ben to take out at any time. The bank has to keep $350 in reserve because that is 100% of the money that the savers have a current claim to.

Under a 100% reserve system, when someone goes to the bank to set up a demand deposit, they are effectively saying "Please keep MY money under lock and key, ready for me to access at any moment. Don't take any risks with it. Do not lend it to anyone. I expect no interest from it, indeed I expect to pay you for your service". When they make a time deposit, the message is different. It is "I am temporarily transferring ownership of my money to you for period X. I know that I will have no claim to that money during period X. It will temporarily be yours (so you can of course lend it out - reserve requirements do not apply when it is your own money). You can lend it to anyone you like and try and make a profit from the loan. When period X expires, the ownership of that money will transfer back from you to me. I'd like a cut of the profits you made when you lent it out." Reissgo (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Alrighty ... so if this is the same bank but Adam has the $100 in time deposits and Ben has $250 in time deposits, then how much does the bank have to hold in reserves (according to your understanding of full reserve systems)? BigK HeX (talk) 15:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

The bank still has to hold 100% (of other peoples money) in reserve at all times. It will just so happens that during period X (the term of the time deposit) they will have $0 of other peoples money (and so be forced to hold 100% of $0) and $350 of their own money (subject to a special legal arrangement) that they are free to lend out. You will see in articles on 100% reserve banking that they will often say that 100% reserve restriction applies to demand deposits. The idea is that people will generally have two bank accounts, a demand deposit account for their day to day spending and a savings (time deposit) account for their savings. Reissgo (talk) 15:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Its a little bit like the following. Say you had a car that you knew you would not drive for the next three months because you were going abroad. Say that you did not have a garage and were worried it may get stolen. You could resolve this situation in two distinct ways...

Plan A. You take it to someone with a secure garage. You could say to the owner - "please look after my car, protect it from rain, protect it from theft, do not take the risk of driving it yourself. Remember at all times that it is still my car and your job is to return it to me in pristine condition just as I left it. I will pay you for the inconvenience".

Plan B. You take it to a friend who you know needs (but does not currently have) a vehicle to drive around. You can say to him "Here, you can use this car for three months. Treat it as your own. Drive wherever you like. You must pay me for the the use of this car."

Why would people choose a full reserve system, such as you propose? What are some of the key benefits? BigK HeX (talk) 17:41, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

1. Protection against bank runs.

2. Many think that fractional reserve banking induces a positive feedback loop in asset prices. This contributes to booms and busts. Full reserve banking reduces or eliminates this feedback.

3. The government can get more direct and simpler control of the money supply.

4. Impossible to generate out of control hyperinflation.

OK .... that seems like a pretty interesting list. Let's go through it. What do you mean by, "protection from bank runs". Are you saying that bank runs are (or should be) impossible in full reserve systems, as you understand them? BigK HeX (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Whoah there... going through all those things is a major undertaking. I'm not volunteering to take you through all of that. Listen, you haven't called me an idiot for at least five or six posts now... does that mean its beginning to dawn on you that I have been right all along? And if not, I think its about time you answered my original question about your idea of 100% reserve banking.

Actually ... that was my last question, I believe. So ... bank runs. Are you saying that bank runs are (or should be) impossible in full reserve systems, as you understand them? The answer for that question should be fairly simple either way. BigK HeX (talk) 00:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

FRB Section 2

Bank runs are not impossible - but certainly much less likely. For a start it matters not one jot if the entire population insist on taking out all of the money they have in their demand deposits because the banks will have all of it in store at the ready. There can not be a *fast* withdrawal of time deposit money because people will have to wait for their notice periods to be served. There are some complications that arise if there is a big mismatch between the average length of loan and the average length of time deposit - but now we are getting into the small print of the implementation details.

Ahh... good. You highlighted FOUR of the major problems of your made-up version of full-reserve banking in that response.

Firstly, you've suggested the possibility that a required feature allows for poor lending to result in bank runs, which is a deal-breaking point in any full reserve banking system, AFAIK.

Secondly, and probably more importantly to you, is that you've pointed out that the bank may indeed have some money obligated to MORE THAN ONE person (if there is a "big mismatch"). You attempt to downplay this, but it's a pretty deal-breaking point, and is certainly one critical reason why your vision of a full reserve system is NOT logically consistent. I'm pretty sure that you, yourself, have posted numerous times that money being obligated to ONE person is a key requirement.

Thirdly, you continue to implicitly assign properties to time deposits that are not intrinsic to them. Further you seem unaware of this conflation, and continue to focus on the time terms of time deposits as the key instead of realizing the ACTUAL key to full reserve banking are the properties that you have (implicitly) assigned to them. I've tried to point this out to you by suggesting that you consider the difference between demand deposits and time deposits with a term of 3-days. Since those two would be nearly indistinguishable, then it follows in a pretty straightforward manner that the fundamental requisites of full reserve banking are not in the time terms alone.

Fourthly, you have yet to even consider the problem of loan default in your scheme. In nothing that you posted, do you cover scenarios where monies obligated to a holder of a "time deposit"_[sic] are lost.

Needless to say, I'm still of the opinion that you are very likely still far from the mark (or have a view that is pretty obscure). However, if you're aware of reliable, non-fringe sources (preferably cited and vetted) that say bank runs (due to non-performing loans) should be possible in a full reserve banking system, that would be a pretty good start for your viewpoint. In light of such a source, I would be inclined to seriously consider supporting you in your efforts. Until then, however, I strongly suggest that you evaluate your understanding and see if there are some major misconceptions that you could clear up. Fisher's book is probably a good start. Check back here later in the week, and I'll probably have a few web sources that may be able to help you out. I vaguely remember there being a few good online papers -- I'll try to hunt them down. BigK HeX (talk) 00:49, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

1. 100% reserve banking doesn't mean that a bank that makes bad loans can not go bust. I don't think anybody claims that it does. But with 100% reserve banking, at any time T if everyone who can claim their money from the bank does so, then in theory enough money exists in the banking system to pay them all at time T. The corresponding statement can not be made about fractional reserve banking - far from it.

2. No money is obligated to more than one person at any time. If a bank stupidly made some large long term loans from short term deposits hoping that savers would renew their terms - or new depositors would arrive in time and they didn't, then the bank could fail. What should happen is that the banks offer higher interest for longer deposits to encourage long term savings. This will mitigate against such outcomes.

3. I don't know what "properties" you are talking about so I can not answer this.

4. I do realise that not all loans will be paid back.

I look forward to hearing about your version of 100% reserve banking.

By the way I am going away for four days later today and am not sure whether or not I will have internet access - so If I suddenly go quiet you will know why.

1. Banks can go bust. But people given a guarantee of 100% reserves should never lose in such a system, by definition. So, we return again to problem with your system that you suggest that this principle can be violated merely by adding time terms to a deposit. What you would really be required to add to deposits is CONSENT --- consent by the depositor to share in risks, which of course, eliminates the pretense that the bank is going to hold the deposits 100% as reserves. The time terms are merely a consequence of giving consent to invest the money, as it will take time for any investment to generate returns.
2. Yes, money can be clearly obligated to more than one person in your seemingly obscure conception of a banking system that you've described. Take the following situation in a system such as you have described. A bank makes a 100% guarantee of redemption to Andy when he submits 3 bars of gold to a bank for a 10-day time deposit. Later, that bank also subsequently draws 3 bars of gold from deposited assets and makes an investment with Bettor Ben. Sadly Bettor Ben takes the assets and promptly loses them at Cal's horse-racing track, which obviously means that Cal ends up with the gold. Now, though Cal holds the gold, in 10-days time, Andy will also have a claim to the 3 bars of gold as well, which -- given this simplified example -- obviously means that the bank has funds obligated to MORE THAN ONE person. A time deposit fundamentally changes nothing, as -- in the end -- a time deposit whose term has expired is exactly equivalent to a demand deposit. A bank taking money made of deposits and utilizing it in this way CANNOT both promise 0% risk to depositors and also risk money in a loan to a borrower without creating the possibility that money has been obligated to both the borrower and the depositor. If you do have such a system where banks make explicit 100% guarantees of redemption while, in actuality, having a less than 100% probability of being able deliver on that promise, then this is merely a hybrid scheme that pretty clearly has few end-result differences from the current fractional reserve system where banks already make those exact same (impossible) promises that are based on risk management evaluations.
3. The property that you've glossed over is Consent. As mentioned above, the key to full reserve banking is a situation that any funds that may contribute to on-lending come with an explicit understanding between the borrower and bank that -- regardless of the contracted promise of returns -- redemption of the funds is not actually guaranteed. Funds without such consent are held in reserve and available even from a failing bank in a full-reserve system.
4. You may be aware of the chance that loans will default in your conception, but you still allow for a 100% guarantee to be given to depositors on their money, and making that promise to both a borrower and a depositor is what creates a fractional reserve banking system.

It seems like the sources you've encountered may speak of "full reserve banking systems" but only as PART of a hybrid system that holds full reserves for some small population of demand deposits and freely practices fractional reserve banking for everything else. But, I'd be interested if you do have non-fringe RS to support the conception you've described.

Enjoy your trip. Hopefully, we'll have more sources to mull over when you've returned! BigK HeX (talk) 15:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

From hotel lobby: All descriptions of "100% reserve banking" will likely include extra details over and above the gist of a system I just described. For example what to do about maturity matching may often be prescribed, then there's guarantees/or not... then there's the system to discourage early withdrawal - is it super strict - or partial etc etc. All these potential extra details mean that it is unlikely that any two recipies for 100% reserve banking will look identical - but the gist will always be the same - i.e. no lending at all from demand deposits + lending from time deposits with some kind of discouragement from withdrawing early... I'm still waiting for ... and have heard zero so far, your understanding of 100% reserve banking. How can you so strongly insist that I have everything wrong on this subject when you appear not to have your own view? Come on, its about time (long overdue even) that you showed your hand. Reissgo (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what more you're asking. Full reserve banking systems involve depositors who either are not risking their deposits or know that their investment may be risked and lost. This contrasts with what you've described, which appears to be some hybrid system where both full reserve and fractional reserve are utilized. If you have a specific question about my opinion, please feel free to ask it. BigK HeX (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

1. For the sake of making further discussion easier, could you please give some kind of name or label to the two types of account you describe.

2. Please can you tell me one or more of the sources you are relying on for your knowledge of 100% reserve banking. Reissgo (talk) 23:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you having trouble answering my questions? Reissgo (talk) 00:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Not particularly. Might take a pretty good while to dig up decent refs though. Probably wouldn't be a bad idea for you to go through some (non-fringe, non-Mises.org) professional academic papers in the meantime, and at least gain an understanding of the prevailing view. BigK HeX (talk) 18:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I notice you've used the word "refs" plural - just to help expedite our discussion, please don't hold back from telling me the first reference you find, even if its just one of many more to come. I am keen to read anything you can find on this sadly neglected area in economics. Reissgo (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

On the 3rd January I asked "Can you please tell me where you have got your ideas about what 100% reserve banking is". On the 10th I asked again: "Please can you tell me one or more of the sources you are relying on for your knowledge of 100% reserve banking.". It is now the 19th and still no answer. Reissgo (talk) 10:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

You got an answer the same day. BigK HeX (talk) 14:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

This had been sitting in wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Program_for_Monetary_Reform) all along! - "(13) The 100% reserve requirement would, in effect, completely separate from banking the power to issue money. The two are now disastrously interdependent. Banking would become wholly a business of lending and investing pre-existing money. The banks would no longer be concerned with creating the money they lend or invest, though they would still continue to be the chief agencies for handling and clearing checking accounts.

Under the present fractional reserve system, if any actual money is deposited in a checking account, the bank has the right to lend it out as belonging to the bank and not to the depositor. The legal title to the money rests, indeed, in the bank. Under the 100% system, on the other hand, the depositor who had a checking account (i.e., a demand deposit) would own the money which he had on deposit in the bank; the bank would simply hold the money in trust for the depositor who had title to it. As regards time or savings deposits, on the other hand, the situation would, under the 100% system, remain essentially as it is today. Once a depositor had brought his money to the bank to be added to his time deposit or savings account, he could no longer us it as money. It would now belong to the bank, which could lend it out as its own money, while the depositor would hold a claim against the bank. The amount, in fact, ought no longer to be called a 'deposit'. Actually it would be a loan to the bank." Reissgo (talk) 19:34, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll check it out, but what I've skimmed of your quote seems to echo what I've read of full reserves. It doesn't look like something that could be used directly, though. I'm trying to find online refs that would be usable for an article. BigK HeX (talk) 21:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Libertarianism

Just wanted to notify you that the Libertarianism article has just been unlocked early, and Darkstar1st is already pushing for removing information about anarchism again. Hopefully he won't manage to get the article locked right away ... anyhow, just wanted to give you a heads up. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 22:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Good to know that the protection is off. BigK HeX (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Anarchism remains one of the significant branches of libertarianism

that is actually how the article reads, not as you stated on the anarchism page "some libertarians are anarchist", troutslap. Darkstar1st (talk) 00:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Umm ... that says exactly that "some BRANCHES OF LIBERTARIANISM are anarchist." BigK HeX (talk) 00:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

uhmm, have you read the last line of the lede? it says the exact words i typed into the section header here. Darkstar1st (talk) 00:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I've read it. It's sad if you really believe the disruptive mess that you're pushing supposedly because of that sentence (or, at least, your disturbing contortion of that sentence). BigK HeX (talk) 17:30, 15 January 2011 ('UTC)

not a contortion, rather a quotation. if it is a branch, why is that omitted from the anarchy page? why is a tertiary source a good idea here, but not there? Darkstar1st (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a contortion. Either you're being disruptive intentionally or because you refuse to understand what's written. The talk page already informed you that you are incorrect, so there's not much reason for me to dignify continued disruption on this point. BigK HeX (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

if it is incorrect there, then it must be at the libertarian site as well. do you understand a reader of one page would learn anarchism is a branch of libertarianism, and the other reader would learn anarchism is it's own tree, not a branch of anything? Darkstar1st (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

It's only "incorrect" in your head. BigK HeX (talk) 19:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

i meant "reverted", not incorrect, apologies. do you think a reader on the anarchism article would agree it is a branch? Darkstar1st (talk) 19:13, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

A reader should agree that some significant portion of libertarians are anarchists, that some libertarians are anarchists. BigK HeX (talk) 20:19, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Rand edit

Regarding this, I thought the same thing initially. But if you look closely, you'll see that the same information about Rand's education was presented twice, once in the body and once in an image caption. IP 160 shortened the caption by reducing the redundancy, and clarified the naming of the university in body text. So it seems to have been a good edit overall. (Except that the word 'history' doesn't need to be wikilinked. IP 160 has a habit of overlinking.) --RL0919 (talk) 02:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Tea Party Movement

I noticed your past participation, perhaps you would be willing to become involved again? WikiManOne (talk) 03:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I see there has been a fair amount of activity. I'll see if there's much that I can contribute. Thanks for the nudge. BigK HeX (talk) 04:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

how is anarchy different from left-libertarian?

"talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles. Talk pages are not mere general discussion pages about the subject of the article, nor are they a helpdesk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance. If you wish to ask a specific question on a topic, Wikipedia has a Reference desk, and questions should be asked there rather than on talk pages." i did not think my question to be general chat, apologies. now that we are in a less public area, is there a difference? Darkstar1st (talk) 00:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you think there is a difference between "rugby" and "full contact sports"?

There are MANY forms of anarchy. Modern left-libertarianism is only one form of anarchy. Same with classic libertarianism [libertarian socialism]. BigK HeX (talk) 03:37, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

wouldn't i be bruised the next day if i played rugby or a different full contact sport? does it matter what shape be the ball? what form of anarchy is different from LL? how is it different? Darkstar1st (talk) 04:18, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

You have the answers relevant to the Wiki article. I encourage you to seek reliable sources on anarchy and left-libertarianism and acquire wonderful knowledge on those subjects. Best wishes on that! My very, very best wishes if you actually think "rugby" is even close to being the same thing as "full contact sports". BigK HeX (talk) 05:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

perhaps you could clarify how rugby is not full contact? your reply was no answer, rather an avoidance of a tough question. is there a form of anarchy different from ll? Darkstar1st (talk) 05:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

rofl@"tough question". Hardly. I wasn't going to say as much, but -- truth be told -- given the answer that you already received, your latest question is actually so juvenile that I feel quite good about not answering it, and letting you do your own research. If your thinking is such that you seriously believe there is no discernible difference between "rugby" and "full contact sports" then you have a long ... VERY long way to go before you can even have any hope of being able to sensibly approach questions on political ideology. Didn't really want to mention any of this, but I do encourage you to further your research. Good luck. BigK HeX (talk) 13:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

how is being tackled, or engaging in a scrum not full contact? Most left-libertarians in this sense are anarchists, Journal of Political Philosophy 10.1 (2002): 20-53 Darkstar1st (talk) 13:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Friendly notice

Hello,

You appear to be in an edit war at the page Austrian School. Please note the Wikipedia policy of WP:3RR that states you cannot revert more than 3 times in 24 hours. Please use the talk page for discussion. If it continues, I will have no choice but to report at WP:AN3. I am warning both users. Thank you, →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 22:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, BigK. Just wanted to observe that when you find yourself telling another user to "Stop edit warring", as you did here, it's probably a good indicator that it's time to back off for a while, or at least to follow the steps in the dispute resolution process. Edit warring doesn't happen in a vacuum, in other words: it takes two. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:39, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm aware of the circumstances of edit warring. I'm also very familiar with the editor in question. BigK HeX (talk) 01:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Mass killings under Communist regimes

Could you please note that this article is now under a 1RR restriction per user per week. Please self-revert your recent change. TFD (talk) 18:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, TFD. If material has been reverted, it only amounts to me performing a single revert spread over a few different edits. I think I'm within the ruling. BigK HeX (talk) 18:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

March 2011 GAN backlog elimination drive a week away

WikiProject Good Articles will be running a GAN backlog elimination drive for the entire month of March. The goal of this drive is to bring the number of outstanding Good Article nominations down to below 50. This will help editors in restoring confidence to the GAN process as well as actively improving, polishing, and rewarding good content. If you are interested in participating in the drive, please place your name here. Awards will be given out to those who review certain numbers of GANs as well as to those who review the most. On behalf of my co-coordinator Wizardman, we hope we can see you in March. MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 00:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	Awarded for good and reliable work on articles of mutual interest. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

kudos, wikipedia is a better place because of your edits. Darkstar1st (talk) 02:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow ... thanks Carol! I'm humbled! BigK HeX (talk) 14:49, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Paul

What part of undue weight do you not get? If you have an issue with it, then take it to talk page. Until then, stop it. Truthsort (talk) 19:04, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Give me a break, only you and another user want to have your version and no one has responded to my last comment. There is seriously no consensus here. Truthsort (talk) 16:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I will simply tell you one last time that making a couple of comments and then remaining silent on the issue does not make it a consensus. Truthsort (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

If you're just going to ignore everything I write, then I am just going to revert your version. There was no consensus on your version and mine gives a good account of his board certification and got rid of more than half of the unnecessary weight. Truthsort (talk) 02:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

You haven't added anything new of substance. Your edit has already been discussed on the talk page by multiple editors, so I don't really plan to just repeat myself. BigK HeX (talk) 00:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

There was never a consensus to not include my edit after a discussion that was a whopping two days long. I am stil waiting for a reply to my comment on the article talk page that I made back on March 25. If you're not going to discuss, then I'll just revert again. Truthsort (talk) 16:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

You should review the advice on disruptive editing. If you think continual reverts is the way to get a disputed edit into an article, I'd ask you to reconsider. I'd much rather than focus on a proposed edit, than to have to look into resolving issues with an editor's behavior and his/her approach to collaborative editing. BigK HeX (talk) 17:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINK

If clearing out the Sea of Blue is appreciated, then why revert? And, BigK HeX, does laissez-faire need to be linked twice in the same paragraph and in an earlier paragraph. See WP:REPEATLINK. As for the non-redundant links, the only ones deleted were plain English words and major geographic names and locations such as Germany, France, etc. Please, if I've over-deleted, go to the specific non-redundant links and restore. But the amount of linking in Austrian School is drastic and the overlinking only serves to make the article less readable. (PS, I'm adding this comment to the Austrian School talk page.) Thanks. --S. Rich (talk) 07:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC) Thanks!14:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the elaboration. I think my confusion on it is mostly cleared up now. Best wishes. BigK HeX (talk) 15:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

RFC on the inclusion of a table comparing SI units and Binary prefixes

Notice: An RFC is being conducted here at Talk:Hard diskdrive#RFC on the use of the IEC prefixes. The debate concerns this table which includes columns comparing SI and Binary prefixes to describe storage capacity. We welcome your input

You are receiving this message because you are a member of WikiProject Computing --RaptorHunter (talk) 18:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Mediation cabal

Hi,
Andrewedwardjudd (talk · contribs) has opened a mediation cabal case on fractional reserve banking. Just letting you know, since you're named in the case but andrewedwardjudd may have forgotten to notify you. I do a little work at medcab but am wary of taking this one due to prior involvement. Have fun... bobrayner (talk) 14:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah thanks. BigK HeX (talk) 16:33, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Can you take a look at the end of this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fractional-reserve_banking#Outside_of_the_mainstream Reissgo (talk) 07:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

After pointing out a number of quotes of this same type of stuff a couple of months ago, and then you still asking now, I am not really inclined to put in futile effort. BigK HeX (talk) 17:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I have noted on the FRB talk page that you are refusing to answer this question. Reissgo (talk) 19:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I've noted that this type of question has already been asked and answered. Then ignored by you. BigK HeX (talk) 19:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

As far as I recall it was answered in a way that suggested that published papers trump textbooks. We now have a good collection of papers, so its time for you to get out of our way. Reissgo (talk) 21:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Fractional reserve banking mediation cabal

This notifies you of my request for mediation to prevent you deleting:

1. My reliable sources, and

2. My attempts to create a neutral point of view:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2011-04-12/fractional_reserve_banking Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 11:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

Your persistant edit warring and refusal to join in discussion on the talk page

just a friendly reminder that your persistant edit warring is against the declared policies of wiki

If you have areas of disagreement the discussion page is available for you to use. Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 11:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

Hi Wonderful Person!!^^

While I understand that the problems may have diminished, since I already contacted two parties involved, I thought I may as well post this here as well:

"A case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2011-04-12/fractional_reserve_banking was brought up so that we may all solve any and all existing problems quickly. While it seems like problems have diminished, would you please join the talks and express any concerns you may have? If the requesting party "Andrewedwardjudd" (who also would like solve the problem) is making it difficult, and the problem comes to no resolution, then the case will simply be closed. As the mediator, my only goal is to solve the problem as efficiently, as objectively, and as kindly as possible^^ Thank you for your consideration and understanding." rm2dance (talk) 03:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to let you know I have added a note here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2011-04-12/fractional_reserve_banking#Discussion Reissgo (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

wpfringe

you are incorrectly reading that first sentence of wp fringe.

All it means that to not be fringe, and therefore excluded from wiki, is that the editor shows it has some acceptance in the academic community. It does not have to be widely accepted as you seem to believe is the case.

I asked the help desk. There view was fringe was upto 5% acceptance. minority was up to 40%

So 60% is the mainstream and the rest of the wackos are you like to call them are in the 35% of the minority and then the oddballs are in the 5%.

Apparently there are zillions of different flavours of economists out there. Mainstream only being 60% of them.

Please dont lecture people about wiki policy when for some reason you are not able to read that policy correctly.

Your comments about only lending from locked time deposits that could not be unlocked demonstrate you have a tendency to rush to judgement of other people, and you are not taking time to think about what other people are saying. Reissgo was correct in that matter even if might be wrong elsewhere.

Under his scheme only one amount of spendable money could ever be created by the banking system.

1000 lent out could not not be lent again unless 1000 was removed with another timed deposit.

Exactly as he said there would be many deposits and many loans but only the same spendable money.

I just do not know why you behaved as you did towards him. You should realise your error and apologise to him.Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

EAR discussion

Your name is involved in a discussion at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Dispute over what constitutes "mainstream". SpinningSpark 13:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks. BigK HeX (talk) 15:26, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

User Spinningspark s/he

I have a userbox on my page that proclaims "this user is a father, and proud of it!". I suppose that could still be ambiguous. SpinningSpark 16:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't as thorough as you in my response :embarrassed: Should've checked your user page! Thanks again for your earnest work at the EA board BigK HeX (talk) 17:10, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

NPOV

rather than worrying about my talk page why do you not follow wiki NPOV policy and ensure the frb page is written in a neutral style rather than presenting the relending model as the truth which can never be challenged no matter how strong the citations become?

Your position is just silly. The voice of wiki should not be used to describe things as facts when it is known there is a raging controversy that is causing central bankers to devote whole speeches on the stupidity of using the simple textbook money multiplier to describe the complexity of how banks create loans in the real world where nobody who has ever worked in a central bank can possibly believe it describes anything useful at all related to lending.

Importantly not once have you ever discussed anything of consequence with me at all. Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 20:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

please stop edit warring

you are preventing the frb wiki main page from being written in a neutral voice.

Evidently you are biased or unable to see this topic objectively.

At no point in time have you ever entered into a discussion as to why you are preventing the wiki frb page from having a neutral voice. Wiki has a clear policy on preventing opinion from being presented as the truth where wiki NPOV is one of the most important and unnegotiable wiki policies.

Since you are clearly being disruptive to all attempts to get NPOV. Actions are being taken to ensure that a NPOV can be obtained without your continued and unreasonable interference. Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

Your mischaracterizations aside, I've been rather active in discussions on the matter. I do not tend to enjoy repeating myself, though so don't expect me to constantly reiterate my position.

In any case, I'm pretty sure the ball is in YOUR court as my last challenge to you went unresolved. BigK HeX (talk) 22:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I am unaware of any challenges made by you. All you have done so far is demand that a view that is not a mainstream view is widely supported by the mainstream or you will decide it is fringe. Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 17:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

Please dont edit war.

To date you have indicated you are refusing to discuss all attempts to create an article with NPOV by collaborating with other editors.

Please cooperate with other editors to enable the page to be presented according to Wiki policy. Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

Lets avoid these edit wars

I note you are allowing my changes and incorporating my suggestions as we proceed. When you discuss these things with me, as you should be doing in the article talk pages, then it will involve less of your time to write to me to tell me about the difficulties your lack of cooperation is causing you.Andrewedwardjudd (talk) 21:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)andrewedwardjudd

Research survey invitation

Greetings BigK HeX-

My name is Randall Livingstone, and I am a doctoral student at the University of Oregon, studying digital media and online community. I am posting to invite you to participate in my research study exploring the work of Wikipedia editors who are members of WikiProject: Countering Systemic Bias. The online survey should take 20 to 25 minutes to complete and can be found here:

https://oregon.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_cSHzuwaQovaZ6ss

Your responses will help online communication researchers like me to better understand the collaborations, challenges, and purposeful work of Wikipedia editors like you. In addition, at the end of the survey you will have the opportunity to express your interest in a follow-up online interview with the researcher.

This research project has been reviewed and approved by the Wikimedia Research Committee as well as the Office for Protection of Human Subjects at the University of Oregon. For a detailed description of the project, please visit its Meta page. This survey is voluntary, and your confidentiality will be protected. You will have the choice of using your Wikipedia User Name during the research or creating a unique pseudonym. You may skip any question you choose, and you may withdraw at any time. By completing the survey, you are providing consent to participate in the research.

If you have any questions about the study, please contact me via my Talk Page (UOJComm) or via email. My faculty advisor is Dr. Ryan Light. If you have any questions regarding your rights as a research participant, please contact the Office for Protection of Human Subjects at the University of Oregon.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

Randall Livingstone School of Journalism & Communication University of Oregon UOJComm (talk) 03:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your hard work...

I am someone who has been following the ideological battle that has become the Libertarianism page for awhile now. I really appreciate your efforts to prevent the page from being hijacked by crazy right-wingers. struggle on comrade! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.123.160.202 (talk) 09:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm just proceeding according to the sourcing  :) BigK HeX (talk) 09:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Austrian School

When are you going to get it through your thick head that WP rules apply to you too!?

I've reversed your edits on the Austrian School and as long as you can't make a decent case for putting them back I'll keep reverting them. There is a section on the talk page dealing with this particular issue. Make your case there, show the appropriate sources, and I'll grant you the edit. Not before. I'm so fucking tired of your bullying and I've alerted ZuMike to your behavior. Misessus (talk) 16:47, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

contempt for wp editing

@*redacted*: I would guess that you have witnessed for yourself the contempt that User:*redacted* has for Wikipedia editing, and why editors such as myself and LK often find it counterproductive to try to help him accept WP policy. this comment has been found to be counter-productive, and perhaps it may or may not violate several wp:policy. plz consider a self-revert here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Austrian_School#Predictive_ability_-_false_information_and_insufficient_referencing Darkstar1st (talk) 12:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the consideration. I'm fine with it as-is. BigK HeX (talk) 21:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

thanks for the report

Thanks for this, I was aiming to do that, but filling all the fields thwarted me. CRETOG8(t/c) 23:25, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

No prob  :)

I think the inconvenience is intentional ... to keep down on frivolous reporting, but quite obviously, his dozen+ reverts are well into edit-warring territory. BigK HeX (talk) 23:29, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

FairTax

BixK HeX, the duplication was in the lead itself, not in the body of the article. The second paragraph states "With the rebate taken into consideration, the FairTax would be progressive on consumption,[3] but would also be regressive on income at higher income levels (as consumption falls as a percentage of income).[7][8] Opponents argue this would accordingly decrease the tax burden on high income earners and increase it on the middle class.[5][9] Supporters contend that the plan would decrease tax burdens by broadening the tax base, effectively taxing wealth, and increasing purchasing power.[10][11]" This is well balanced and sourced and states exactly what was stated in the material you keep reinserting. Also the material has policy issues. "Further, a consumption tax would place additional burden on those who spend the majority of their incomes just meeting life's basic necessities" Fact? Who's opinion? Based on what study? What is the reference? It's WP:OR. "while those whose incomes greatly exceed their expenses would unfairly benefit;" Really? Unfairly.. based on what? Again a un neutral statement that is WP:OR and unsourced. "the FairTax proposal includes a universal subsidy from the government which would greatly reduce this burden on the poorest Americans." Universal subsidy is a somewhat loaded term and it's not entirely universal, there are certain exclusions - like being a U.S. citizen. poorest Americans seems to limit this and can be subjective depending on the measure of poverty (income or wealth). Again, it's duplication and violates several policy points. Please don't reinsert it. Morphh ^(talk) 00:47, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I misunderstood the edit summary about the duplication. Thanks for the note to clear that up. BigK HeX (talk) 01:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I have initiated a dispute resolution process with you on the dispute resolution page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Austrian_business_cycle_theory

Michael.suede (talk) 23:13, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Austrian business cycle theory dispute resolution

I have initiated a dispute resolution process with you on the dispute resolution page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Austrian_business_cycle_theory

Michael.suede (talk) 23:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Mises Institute as fringe?

Please, BigK, you are entirely off the mark when you say (or intimate) that mises.org or the Mises Institute is a "fringe site" or that it posts "crap". Consider this write up from the editor of the WSJ Business Europe column: [20]. Specifically, he describes the Mises Institute as "a world class think tank . . .." They do have a community blog page -- http://community.mises.org/ -- but I don't think anything from that page is being used (nor should it be) in WP. (The other blog page -- http://blog.mises.org/ -- has posts by its editors and should qualify as acceptable under the criteria of WP:USERG.) But I think you have a fundamental disapproval of the Mises Institute because you see it as "fringe" and that disapproval is adversely impacting your POV when reviewing edits. I hope you will WP:COOL when contributing. Regards, --S. Rich (talk) 21:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)21:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC) 02:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

agreed, mises.org has met and surpassed all standards for inclusion to wp. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

It is fringe, which is why it was set up in the first place, to publish theories that cannot be published in the mainstream. BTW they have their own wiki,[21] designed to present their own view of reality. User:Karmaisking and User:Marknutley are star contributors and I am sure they would welcome Darkstar1st contributions. TFD (talk) 02:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I am so sorry. My comment simply asked BigK to reflect upon the observation of a Wall Street Journal editor about mises.org -- not to engender a discussion about the institute itself. (Such a discussion would be better handled on the Talk:Ludwig von Mises Institute page.) I hope BigK will avail him/herself of the WP:OWNTALK policy and consider deleting this line of discussion. (But thank you TFD for the heads-up on the mises wiki.) --S. Rich (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Even the Mises Institute makes a distinction between Austrian economics and mainstream economics, just google "Mises Institute mainstream". You'll find dozens of articles listing distinctions, most on mises.org. WP:FRINGE says "[w]e use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field." It doesn't matter if the Mises Institute has a lot of fans. What makes the Mises Institute fringe is that they're not mainstream economics. However, mises.org isn't fringe for Austrian school opinion, so their website is a good source for that.--Dark Charles (talk) 21:54, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Please read more re the fringe theory criteria: "Scholarly opinion is generally the most authoritative for identifying the mainstream view, . . .." In the case of mises.org, Mises Institute, and Austrian economics there is lots of scholarly opinion supporting the field, and because there is such support, it does not significantly depart from mainstream economics. "Fringe" is a derogatory term, used by POV editors to criticize the people in Alabama simply because they disagree with them. Heterodoxy is the much more appropriate and more NPOV term and is used in the articles themselves. Finally, I note that none of the comments above address the "world class" description given by a WSJ editor. Instead the editors bring their observations (and lack of support thereof) to this talk page and not the appropriate topic discussion pages where a wider audience could read and respond. They have gone off-topic from the point I was bringing up with BigX. (BigX, I hope you are enjoying this! If not, please hit "delete".) --S. Rich (talk) 02:12, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a funny place to be having this conversation. I suggest moving it over to WT:ECON. However, since it's here, I agree with the other economists here. Mises Institute is definitely fringe. Austrian economics is not, it's a small 'minority' position. But Mises Institute was specifically set up by billionaire supporters to promote fringe views. S. Rich, you claim that "mises.org, Mises Institute, and Austrian economics there is lots of scholarly opinion supporting the field,". This is conflating two things, and is incorrect. Austrian economics is discussed by, and has contributed to the mainstream. Mises Institute, and mises.org, have not. It is currently popular only among internet enthusiasts, but no academic economist takes their publications seriously. Even academic Austrian economists wish to distance themselves from that institute (have a look at Peter Boetkke's blog "coordination failure"). These are fringe institutions. LK (talk) 03:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

How interesting -- mises.org and Mises Institute gets a "Fringe science" label, but Austrian economics does not? Really, then, the complaint is that mises.org and Mises Institute are not notable. (Particularly because billionaires contribute to it! (Yes, billionaires frequently contribute to non-WP:notable institutions and causes, which automatically makes such causes and institutions fringe and non-notable.)) Still, I see no addressing of the WSJ observation that it is a "world class" think tank. Nor do I see any discussion about the various academics who work there. (Thank you again, BigX, for hosting this discussion!!)--S. Rich (talk) 04:09, 22 August 2011 (UTC) And I looked at Peter Boettke April 21, 2009 at 09:36 AM. He says "The Mises Institute Does Amazing Work".04:22, 22 August 2011 (UTC)05:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I think I'm going to have to disagree with LK a bit on this one. In my opinion, Austrian economics "departs significantly" from mainstream economics. I think most Austrian economists would even agree with that point. In particular, Austrians generally don't publish in mainstream academic journals or formulate their theories in terms of mathematics. So I don't see support for Austrian economics as non-fringe. As far as Srich's article, it's pretty clear that it's an opinion piece, and it even touches on the scholarliness of Austrian economics when it says: "Auburn University had one of the few Austrian-tolerant economics departments."--Dark Charles (talk) 04:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Since Austrians reject empiricism, and thus reject standard application of scientific method, I would qualify them as departing "significantly" from the mainstream, which seems to be sourceable. Also, Mises is not a reliable publisher, IMO.

I have copied&pasted the BigK discussion to WT:ECON. If you wish, let's continue the conversation there. --S. Rich (talk) 21:20, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Notability as a criteria for including material in an article?

BigK, you are misconstruing WP:NOTE as a criteria for including or excluding material in an article! "These notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not directly limit the content of an article or list." (Also see: WP:NNC. Even so, Sudha Shenoy has met notability guidelines -- she has an article. And thefreemanonline.org is published by the Foundation for Economic Education. Your deletion of the material, if based on notability, is improper. Please revert. If you have weight or RS issues, bring them up, but please drop this notability argument. Finally, please note that I did justify my edit on the talk page as I made the edit. I invite your response. (I am posting portions of this comment on the AS talk page.)--S. Rich (talk) 19:01, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Mediation request to be closed

Since there has been no discussion at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2011-04-12/fractional_reserve_banking in several months, and the mediator who accepted the case has, per his talk page, apparently chosen to leave Wikipedia. I will close the listing after 22:00 UTC on September 2, 2011, unless someone edits that page to ask that it be left open. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. BigK HeX (talk) 02:40, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

edit warring

This is a reminder and a warning that WP:3rr is only a bright line, not a licence to edit war. In looking at your contributions, I see that you've been in on the slow-burn edit war at Austrian School. The article is protected for now, but when that lifts, please be aware that sometimes even one undo a week to an article can be taken as edit warring, with a block as the outcome. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

MKuCR

Although I believe that this edit is a significant improvement, and I totally support it, I have to remind you that major undiscussed edits are prohibited per the edit restrictions imposed on this article. Since this rule is obligatory for everyone, I think it would be correct to at least discuss this edit on the talk page.
Sincerely, --Paul Siebert (talk) 20:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah... I noticed that sanction after I made the edit. Thanks for the heads up. I'm actually still OK with the edit since, IMO, it merely encapsulates the material that is already there in the remainder of the lede text. BigK HeX (talk) 21:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

PA

Stop you two. As I understand the process, a 3RR will trigger a bot. Really, there is no need to engage in WP:PA -- either way. I have just now made the same comment to Byself .--S. Rich (talk) 05:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

RfC

Hi BigK, Just wanted to mention I thought your handling of the RfC on Mass killings was most excellent. I especially liked how you set apart a section for random non-involved editors. Well done. Hope things turn out well there. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a ton, mate! Just trying to break an impasse. Sadly, not enough opinions to convince the small handful already involved. Hope you've been doing well. Happy holidays and hapy Wiki'ing! BigK HeX(talk) 02:20, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Happy holidays to you, too. Malke 2010 (talk) 06:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Dispute resolution survey

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello BigK HeX. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click HERE to participate. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 11:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

HAHAHAHA!

Mate, I laughed out loud when I read the ABCT talk page recently. "This has been resolved years ago! I fought this war before! Mommy!" - LickGoldman'sSacks (talk) 10:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I laugh out loud to know that it has been years and you still think about me. BigK HeX(talk) 16:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)