User talk:70.22.67.251

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome

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

You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but you may wish to create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. If you edit without a username, your IP address (70.22.67.251) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) 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!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism of land value tax article

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. 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. Thank you. --Explodicle (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] January 2008

The recent edit you made to Land value tax constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thanks. Snowolf How can I help? 21:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC))

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Land value tax. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Snowolf How can I help? 21:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


How the heck is putting "problems with implmentation" (a criticism) under "criticisms" vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.22.67.251 (talk) 21:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for Vandalism. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may do so when the block expires. Snowolf How can I help? 21:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I still don't see how is this "vandalism"? No content is being removed. I'm just putting a criticism under the criticism section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.22.67.251 (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The way you were doing it (unjustified deletions) was bad. Once your block has expired, please use the "Show preview" button, sign your posts, use Edit Summaries, and create an account. Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "This really seems like a "cool down" block which is not allowed. Alleged "Problems with implementation" is a criticism it should be put in the Criticism section. That I can't even make that remark in the discussion section is just unwarranted censorship."

Decline reason: "reason — declined. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.


WHY IS IT A BAD WAY TO EDIT. BECAUSE YOU SAY SO?

1. Loss of Asset Value should not be part of "general problems of implementation". It is a specific criticism unrelated to alleged problems with implementation. It is not a problem with implementing it is an alleged result of implementing which is criticized.

1a. But under "General Problems of Implementation" there should be

  LVT not possible where there is no clear ownership

  LVT is nearly impossible to implement where there are no certain land titles and clearly established and recognized ownership.  This phenomena is found world-wide in developing countries and is in part the subject of the work of de Soto http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hernando_de_Soto_%28economist%29

2. The heading "Individual claimants of disadvantages" is rather awkward English and in fact that section should be eliminated with the the essence of the claims by Marx and Davenport summarized and then cited. E.g. instead of heading of Karl Marx the heading should be:

Focus on Land obscures Monopoly of Capital

Marx's criticism of land tax (as anything more than one of the measures to be imposed during a transition to communism) was relatively influential. He argued that "The whole thing is...simply an attempt, decked out with socialism, to save capitalist domination and indeed to establish it afresh on an even wider basis than its present one." He also criticized the way land value tax theory emphasizes the value of land - arguing that "Theoretically the man is utterly backward! He understands nothing about the nature of surplus value and so wanders about in speculations which follow the English model but have now been superseded even among the English, about the different portions of surplus value to which independent existence is attributed--about the relations of profit, rent, interest, etc. His fundamental dogma is that everything would be all right if ground rent were paid to the state."[14]

Instead of heading of Herbert J. Davenport, the heading should be:

Land used less efficiently

Herbert J. Davenport, an early 20th century economist from the University of Missouri and Cornell University, was a major critic of the land value tax. Davenport sympathized with the goal of taxing the "unearned increment." However, he believed that efforts to do this by means of a land value tax would cause the land to be used less efficiently. For farm land, he thought that this was obvious. "The farmer", he said, "is continually renewing his land's fertility and other characteristics. A tax on one parcel of land will simply cause farmers to abandon it and to prepare and fertilize other untaxed land. And a tax on all agricultural land will simply be a tax on the production of farm goods." The result, he believed, would be a decreased supply of farm goods relative to other goods, higher prices of farm goods, and a fall in the amount of land on which crops are grown. [Citation needed]

And then this section should also be added:

Neutrality of Land Value Tax inconsistent with other claims

If the Land Value Tax is neutral, then it should neither cause land to be used more efficiently nor used less efficiently. See, Schwab and Oates (1997) but compare Plassman and Tideman (2000) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.22.67.251 (talk) 22:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful analysis. I think you have much to contribute to Wikipedia, but your contributions need to be within its established structure. In addition to the above, I suggest that, once your block expires, you post to the article's talk page Talk:Land value tax to iron out and get consensus on the changes you propose.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 22:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Land value tax. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Mentifisto 21:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand your allegation. Instead of reverting my changes. WHY DON'T you explain with specificity in the Talk section what your problem precisely is with the changes.

Let me further say that when you undo my edits I think that you are vandalizing. Almost everything on this topic that is actually clear, understandable, logically and NPOV have been my edits over that last 3 or 4 years.

What I think is that you just use some robot to look for changes that appear to be big and then unthinkingly flag them as potential vandalism.

For example, the urban land section under implementation. That makes no sense. I preserved the content and put it on the content page. Where is the vandalism in that?

As to the other changes, I made no content was lost I just made in more logical and NPOV.

Why does the fact that you use a fictious name Mentifisto (because that surely isn't your given name) but are a "registered" make your reversion better than my edits which on this page (by another robot user) where called "thoughtful". 70.22.67.251 (talk) 21:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


  • Mentifisto, it looks to me like recent edits of 70.22.67.251 you recently undid were in good faith, not vandalism.
  • 70.22.67.251, if I'm right and you're ready to play by the rules, you might like to register for a nice clean slate. Just remember to be nice.

--Explodicle (talk) 22:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


I still don't understand how "70.22.67.251" or any other IP address is any less identifiable of good faith than made up names like "Mentifisto" and "Explodicle". There is too much mindless (i.e. robotic) accusation of vandalism. If registration, involved real names and real physcial address then there might be a point.

If one is going to accuse of vandalism and revert something then I think the burden should be on the accuser/undoer to explain her or his reasons for the accusation that reference the actual text or content at issue -- Not just some macro language clip and pasted. That is more like real vandalism. 70.22.67.251 (talk) 18:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


Oh as to play by the rules. Look at Rule 1 and Rule 12 of safe behaviour and all of them in between. I think I have been following them way more than what has gone on. 70.22.67.251 (talk) 19:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


The only edit I claimed was vandalism is this one. I've got better stuff to do than argue with you about this. --Explodicle (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)