User talk:Pottsf

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Pottsf, 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 name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  - Tapir Terrific 16:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Arbitration

I'm afraid that the request for arbitration you opened regarding the Gaza strip edit war was premature and inappropriate. May I suggest that you familiarise yourself with theWikipedia dispute resolution process, and that you consider withdrawing the arbitration request, which is bound to be rejected. (You don't go running to the supreme court with every classroom spat).--woggly 09:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An austrian?!?!

You may be surprised to know that according to the current debate on inflation you are very fringe. Carbonate 10:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gaza

I just work on categories and copyedits. Sometimes, I see things that look out of place/wrong and I bring them up. That's all I do. Nothing exciting. Thanks Hmains 02:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Ungezieferbefall"

Hallo!

Ich schreib dir in Deutsch, weil du es offenbar schreiben und lesen kannst. Ich habe mir erlaubt, den Westbahnhof-Artikel bezüglich des "Ungezieferbefalls" zu ergänzen. Falls ich dich richtig verstanden habe, wusstest du nicht, was damit gemeint war. Das Wort "infestation" hattest du ja schon geschrieben und "Ungeziefer" lässt sich mit dem Wort "vermin" übersetzen. Alles klar? Wenn nicht, beantworte ich dir gern weitere Fragen über meine Diskussionseite. - der Polizist

[edit] Gold Standard

The article had reached a point where it was deviating significantly from "Neutral Point of View", particularly both the introduction and significant sections of the body. I can certainly understand being disheartened at losing work, however, there was no way to clean up everything without reverting back to a "last reasonably good version" and working forward from there.

One reason I reverted the edits you made however was this one section in particular:

In an international gold-standard system, which may exist in the absence of any internal gold standard, gold or a currency that is convertible into gold at a fixed price is used as a means of making intergovernmental payments. Under such a system, when the exchange rate between two currencies rises above or falls below the fixed mint rate by more than the cost of shipping gold from one country to another, arbitrageurs can buy gold with the undervalued currency, ship it to the country whose currency is overvalued, and there redeem it for gold until the intercurrency rate returns close enough to the official level that such activity is no longer profitable. International gold standards such as that established after World War I limit which entities have the right to redeem currency for gold. Under the Bretton Woods system, these were called "SDRs" for Special Drawing Rights.

International gold standards don't require intergovernmental payments be made in the gold standard - for example the Renaissance saw an international gold standard because banks used particular fineness of coinage, in order to allow trade settlement to occur. During the 1500-1800 period, formal transport of governmental gold or silver reserves to pay off national accounts was not the means by which international gold (or silver in many cases) standards were imposed, but instead by the relative market prices of different coins or notes, often set either by banks or internally by a government (for example Newton's assay). With settlement in a standard coin, particularly for bills of trade, the effect is to standardize convertible value, even, or often especially, in the absence of government reserves being transfered. Governments often ended up responding to bleeding coinage in wake of such adjustments by ending the circulation of gold or silver coins, and issuing notes instead which reduced the ability of specie to flee a particular nation. Stirling Newberry 19:08, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Islamicists

The group seems to be notable enough to warrant inclusion - and that is what is important, not whether it makes the advocates for a particular point of view look good or bad. Stirling Newberry 19:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Look forward to your further work on the article. Stirling Newberry 21:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course, we must remember that things that are "Notable" to Stirling are just things that advance his fringe, non-majority POV. T Turner 13:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Let's see Turner and personal attacks and Joe and directly inaccurate material. I see. Well mediation will help, but the sources are not going to back you up on your quest for making Gold Standard unreflective of current scholarship on the field. Stirling Newberry 11:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advice

I would advise that you be less hostile, and far less POV in your edits. I would also advise that you not associate with trolls, particularly people who troll off of wikipedia. This is a collegial enterprise, based on coöperation and an attempt to reflect the diverse body of opinion and argument over various subjects. So far people have been accepting of the fact you are new, and it does take time for people to get used to wikipedia. Lots of great editors had rough entries into wikipedia. You might want to talk with user Mel Ettis about this, as he is a good editor from an academic background who has no particular ideological axe to grind. There are lots of others as well.

Good luck in editting wikipedia.

Stirling Newberry 23:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[1] Sorry for the typo.

And a note about internet text dialog. ALL CAPS IS SHOUTING. Stirling Newberry 03:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Stirling just falsely accused me of harassing him outside of Wikipedia. The problem is the fact that I have a life outside of Wikipedia and do not spend it harassing anybody, let alone someone of Stirling Newberry's character. Anyway, Joe, if you would like to know what Stirling means by "less hostile, less POV" Google his name. Stirling has lots of friends on the Internet that consistently ask him why he views any attempt to disagree with him as a personal attack, why his POV is the correct POV, and why if you make any attempt to counter his actions, you are attacking and harassing him. T Turner 15:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Turner has been blocked for making personal attacks. I'm assuming you (Joe) are making edits in good faith and simply want to improve the quality of the 'pedia. Stirling Newberry 03:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Turner was blocked because he was a previously banned user. Don't let Stirling insuante details that he knows nothing about nor has any control over, even he was banned several times. No one is immune from the rules, even if one of their friends happens to be an admin buddy that Stirling can cry his shoulder on. Oh, and before he comes in and says it - I'm not Ray Lopez, but judging from his talk page and his recent actions, He and Ray have quite a bit in common! D Sanchez 06:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

No pleading was required, you haven't done anything wrong as such, just the normal learning curve of the vast subculture which is wikipedia. It is pretty easy to stay on the good side of wikipedia - just make good edits, write new articles in a well researched NPOV style, and people will rapidly notice. This is particularly true of people who turn stubs into important articles or have a talent for finding language which resolves different view points in a way that reaches consensus. Stirling Newberry 02:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Please desist with the accusations of bad faith. And please try to be more accurate and less POV in your edits. So far you seem to desire making working on this page unpleasant, and have hurled a series of attacks and insults that is beginning to go beyond the realm of discussion and into the realm of incivility. Stirling Newberry 03:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gold Standard

I'm attempting to clean up the "Nazi Germany" gold issue from the [Gold Standard] article, as that belongs in an article about the Economic History of Nazi Germany, not an article about an economic issue. Stirling Newberry has reverted the edits of various editors five times in less than 24 hours, and I reported him for a 3RR violation. Could you please assist in this matter? I'm trying to work towards a consensus, but I am unable to even post to Stirling Newberry's talk page. Thank you 87.19.140.175 20:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Gold Standard

The facts speak for themselves - you've removed notable citable material. You've consorted with someone who splayed sockpuppets and harassment. Your edits have often been inaccurate. Yet you persist in lecturing me. Please cease to do this, it is uncollegial.

BTW:

87.19.140.175 resolves to "host175-140-dynamic.19-87-r.retail.telecomitalia.it

Stirling Newberry 17:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Climate-Change Survey

Your question ("Do you feel that the conclusions of science are of sufficient confidence and strength to justify government action to enforce behavioral changes for the purpose of influencing climate change?") seems to be full of unstated assumption, making it very hard to answer in a non-misleading way! I have a lot of trust in the quality of the global warming consensus (i.e. the IPCC report, refined by later work). I think it warrants gouvernment action. But I don't think gouvernment action should "force" behavioral changes, but rather support and encourage them (i.e. by long-term and deterministically increasing taxation on fossil fuel use, offset by subventions for cleaner solutions). The market is excellent at optimising economic behaviour, but gouvernments should set the conditions that optimal economic behaviour coincides with the common good (i.e. by putting a fair price on the use common resources like the ocean or the atmosphere to avoid the tragedy of the commons). With respect to your question, I suspect I would fall into what you think is the "yes" category, but strictly speaking I would have to answer "no". --Stephan Schulz 18:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)