User talk:69.138.16.202

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, 69.138.16.202, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Marlith T/C 04:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Al-Qaeda

Yes, I do agree they are terrorists. But it's still a point of view - there's the old adage "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" - and thus should not be in article-space. We can say they are classed as terrorists by country X, Y, and Z, but we can't convery an opinion themselves. Will (talk) 11:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read this: "Let the facts speak for themselves" - this is what I'm trying to say. There may and probably is be a sizeable portion of people who think al-Qaeda are doing the "Right Thing™" and are not terrorists, so the word remains POV unless otherwise. Will (talk) 12:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
There is. Will (talk) 12:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Still, can you explain why the word "terrorist" is not a POV term? You can hold the point of view that al-Qaeda are terrorists, but it's not fact until al-Qaeda themselves say they are. They are a militant organisation as they've admitted that much. But we can't say they're terrorists as people can say easily say they're freedom fighters. (both terms are as extreme as each other, and the opposite POV can be held by millions in the Middle East) Will (talk) 12:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
With your last post, you're just trolling. Consider yourself ignored. Will (talk) 12:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] December 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Debt money. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Nol888(Talk)(Review) 17:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

[edit] Re: Debt-based monetary system

I have been at Wikipedia for some time, and I know that there is usually a formal AfD discussion before an article is arbitrarily redirected. Also, as an IP user, I wonder what formal experience you have to make these decisions. Excuse me if that sounds rude, just, this seems to conflict with what my experiences tell. Nol888(Talk)(Review) 17:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

There was no formal decision to redirect the page. Wikipedia is about being bold, but such unwarranted changes as a page redirect is not covered under that policy. Nol888(Talk)(Review) 17:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
It is not up to you to determine if the article is "junk" or not. Wikipedia is community-based, and such decisions need to be decided upon by the community first. Nol888(Talk)(Review) 17:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Debt money, you will be blocked from editing. Also, you broke the three-revert rule on that one. -- Vision Thing -- 20:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I only reverted three times. Each revert is clearly numbered. I did not violate WP:3RR. 69.138.16.202 (talk) 22:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
As an uninvolved party here, I'd just like to point out that WP:3RR does not entitle you to three reverts, and in fact recommends avoiding multiple reverts at all. Reverting precisely three times and numbering each one is in violation of the spirit of the rule, if not the precise letter. Why not just discuss it on the talk page rather than repeatedly reverting when there's clear opposition to it? Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 22:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] December 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Debt-based monetary system, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Debt-based monetary system was changed by 69.138.16.202 (c) (t) deleting 62042 characters on 2007-12-29T13:08:52+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 13:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Various errors

Some of your assertions to Sceptre are simply false.

Mainstream economics reaidly acknowledges that private banks can create money. They no longer print or mint currency, but money includes amounts credited to such things as checking accounts. Now, let's say that the public wants to hold 5% of its money in cash, and that the government requires banks to keep reserves of 10%.

  • Joe gets $10 from the government. He deposits $9.50, holding the rest as cash.
  • The bank keeps $.95 of that on reserve, and loans-out the remaining $8.55. The original $10 is now $18.55.
  • The lent $8.55 ends-up with someone. She keeps $.43 as cash, and deposits the remaining $8.12.
  • The bank keeps $.82 of that on reserve, and loans out the remaining $7.30. The original $10 is now $25.85.
  • The lent $7.30 ends-up with someone. He keeps $.37 and deposits the remaining $6.93.
  • The bank keeps $.70 of that on reserve, and loans out the remaining $6.23. The original $10 is now $32.08.

This series converges, but you can see that much more money exists in the system as a result of fractional reserve banking. When economists want to talk only of the money issued directly by the central monetary authority, they call it “M0”. But most of the time we talk of M1 or M2, which include money created by such things as fractional reserve banking.

Note also that, with fractional reserve banking, private banks create money even if the monetary authority issues commodity money. The $10 that Joe got could have been silver coin. So what your opponent is calling “debt money” is not the same thing as fiat money. (However, I certainly didn't encounter the term “debt money” when I was studying money and banking, or reading academic journals.)

—SlamDiego←T 02:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)


Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Debt-based monetary system. Your edits have been automatically marked as unconstructive/possible vandalism and have been automatically reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Debt-based monetary system was changed by 69.138.16.202 (c) (t) deleting 62042 characters on 2007-12-30T13:41:38+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 13:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)