User talk:Gregalton

Hamilton

Thank you for your attempt to settle things at Talk:Alexander Hamilton. I am afraid your response has led the other editor to conclude that "financier" should be reomoved if "political economist" stays because, he contends, they are the same thing. I apologize for troubling you again, but would you care to weigh in on this, as well? Thank you. Shoreranger (talk) 17:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Stubs Monetary authority Purchasing power Hot money Creditor Civil society Friedman rule Marginalism Debtor Government spending Trade barrier Social sciences Forex swap Commodity Open market Foreign direct investment Wholesale price index Credit money Gold gram Primary market

Cleanup Bank for International Settlements Behavioral finance Debt levels and flows Merge Tariff History of money Economic surplus Add Sources Debt-free money Risk-free interest rate Freigeld Wikify Bank of North America Accounting equation Economy of the Federated States of Micronesia Expand Bank regulation Credit score Office of the Comptroller of the Currency

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 ForteTuba, 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. -- ForteTuba (talk) 14:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

France and the Commonwealth

This is already referenced at the end of the paragraph, which links to this Guardian article http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jan/15/france.eu and also this news release from The National Archives David Underdown (talk) 12:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't read this article the same way at all.--Gregalton (talk) 14:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Pied-Noir

Sorry about the move....bummer...we've been working so hard going back and forth between the spelling of the two (look at the history) and trying to get the correct usage.....bummer....anyway, you're correct, it SHOULD have been raised on the talk page. I am moving it back now, per your comment. Btw, thanks for noticing. Could you provide some insight on this? I've been unable to find a straight answer. I'm also putting this on the article's talk page....Lazulilasher (talk) 14:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Inflation

Please take a look at the latest changes to the definition in the Inflation article [1]. --Doopdoop (talk) 22:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Gregalton, I am sick and tired of your insults here on Wikipedia. Signed: Nicolaas Smith.

You knew if you carried on long enough with your insults I will have to leave some or other time.

Well, that time has now come.

This is the article that neither you nor your friend can delete:

[2]

You will delete or remove what I write here. That has been your style in the past and you will do that again.

You and no-one else can stop or remove Real Value Accounting from the economic scene.

Real Value Accounting will prevail. It will one day be contributed here on Wikipedia by some-one other than me.

I know and every-one here knows that you will fight them off as much as you can. But, in the end Real Value Accounting will appear on Wikipedia.

704 people have already downloaded the book on their own free will.

I am not ashamed that I developed Real Value Accounting by chance as a result of my experience with hyperinflation.

I am not ashamed that I identified that inflation has a monetary and non-monetary component.

I am not ashamed that I identified that the stable measuring unit assumption destroys real value on a massive scale world wide.

I am not ashamed to be who I am and to sign my real name to what I write here.

Nicolaas Smith (talk) 22:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe I've insulted you, nor suggested you should be ashamed. I have stated that Wikipedia may not be the appropriate venue for you to promote your research, and that the way you have done so has not been constructive. It would help to acquaint yourself better with WP policies.--Gregalton (talk) 05:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

This sounds like an open and shut case of WP:OR. I've seen Greg's work and know him to have a balanced, thoughtful approach to inclusion of pertinent information. Skyemoor (talk) 03:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Research: diligent and systematic inquiry or investigation into a subject in order to discover or revise facts, theories, applications: Dictionary.com.

Fact: something that actually exists; reality; truth: Dictionary.com

Peer reviewed publication in leading accountancy journal: [3]

Extract from peer reviewed article (fact): "The combination of the Historical Cost Accounting model and low inflation is thus indirectly responsible for the destruction of the real value of Retained Income equal to the annual average value of Retained Income times the average annual rate of inflation."

Extract from peer reviewed article (fact): "Everybody suddenly then agrees to destroy hundreds of billions of Dollars in real value in all companies´ Retained Income balances all around the world."

Obviously of little importance to you.

Obviously of great importance for you are the following; why, I do not know and I do not care. Just sad, really. Especially when this is done on Wikipedia:

Lie: "a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive" : Dictionary.com.

My work is not research any more. What I state are facts as verified by the peer reviewed article. Please, do not lie about my work, that is, make a false statement with the deliberate intent to decieve.

No incivility intended towards you. I am only quoting and stating facts.

You are very uncivil to me. As I have stated repeatedly in the past: Gregalton, I am sick and tired of your insults here on Wikipedia.

Obviously, you do not get banned for continously insulting a good faith editor.

Nicolaas Smith (talk) 22:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You say no incivility is intended while accusing me of lies. That's just nonsense.--Gregalton (talk) 01:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

And by the way: I think you misunderstand the meaning of the word research.--Gregalton (talk) 06:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

If Mr. Smith's 'research' becomes published in a notable economic journal, then perhaps this can be re-examined at that time. Until then, WP:OR is quite clear. Thanks again Greg for holding the line on appropriate content. 198.151.13.8 (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

My work was published in South Africa´s leading accountancy journal, namely, The South African Institute of Chartered Accountant´s journal Accountancy South Africa in September 2007. Here is the link to the peer reviewed article: [4]

I will now look up on the talk pages where Gregalton congratulated me for being published and post the link over here next.

Nicolaas Smith (talk) 17:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Here it is: "........the situation has evidently changed now that your work has actually been published - congratulations................ "--Gregalton (talk) 14:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This appears in the current Inflation talk page under the Plain English section. [5]

Nicolaas Smith (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

One of many points you have missed entirely is that, even if published, that does not make Wikipedia the venue to promote your theories (and being published once does not make it fact, nor worthy of re-writing whole other articles, nor "proof" that the standard definitions of e.g. inflation should be re-written).

The ANI was about your behaviour, and you have not responded to those issues nor substantively changed your behaviour despite frequent suggestions from many different parties.

You have focussed on me, a single person, as being the problem; you may want to consider what others have noted and consider whether the problem lies elsewhere.--Gregalton (talk) 04:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I see that you are continuing to engage with him on his talk page. I think this may only be prolonging his presence there by giving him somebody to argue with. He seems to be unable to take advice or let anybody else have the last word. He seems to crave attention and thrive off conflict. If we all ignore him, maybe he is more likely to give up. I am sure there must be many economics based blogs and forums he could go and annoy instead. That said, if he does come back with another account, I have no doubt that it will be painfully obvious what is going on and that it will lead to another swift block. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Good advice - I will keep to a minimum.--Gregalton (talk) 14:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Some weasel words

Any idea about what we can do about this in Fractional-reserve banking?

The [Austrian] business cycle theory was recognized by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, which awards the Nobel Prize in Economics[1], but is not universally accepted...

You agree that this is weasel words? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 02:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Take it out. What does it have to do with FRB anyway? You may want to look at the criticism article, too--Gregalton (talk) 04:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, I tried to remove that sentence a while back, but somebody put it back in, claiming it was sourced. Technically, it is, but it's taken out-of-context. Also, if I removed that, I'd have to figure out how to re-write it. It's virtually impossible to find any credible sources on Austrian economics, because there are none, outside of their own self-published pop economics, which isn't picked up by academic journals. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 05:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Thanks

I've been there, & it takes a certain amount of experience to be bold. However, this shows it's not over. -- llywrch (talk) 06:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No Barbarians Please

I note that we have been having a little tiff on DBMS and am concerned that the repeated reverts are getting out of hand. I now see that you have a record of distressing other contributors as well. Quite badly. Nicolaas Smith seems very cheesed off by your conduct. I would ask you to reflect on your conduct and see that several editors are distressed by your dogmatism and self-righteous approach. Please keep a degree of tolerance to "other" (perhaps radical, perhaps strange) views if they are appropriately expressed and refed. Barbarism has been (rightly in my view) condemned in others. Let's keep things civil on WP.--Lagrandebanquesucre (talk) 06:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

If you think the case of Mr. Smith is an example of my poor conduct, you appear to be misinformed; Mr. Smith's approach has always been that of one expecting, desiring and provoking his own martyrdom. I see very little evidence of other editors distressed by my approach - save the single-issue obsessives.--Gregalton (talk) 06:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Lagrandebanquesucre is a confirmed sockpuppet of Karmaisking:

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Lagrandebanquesucre ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 21:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I think you and I must have filed the RCUs at almost the same time (there were two). I'd been meaning to do that for a few days.--Gregalton (talk) 01:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the spelling of "pied-noir"

Hi Gregalton, I don't know if you recall, but you and I were in a discussion about the proper capitalization of "pied-noir". Anyway, I finally got ahold of the large, 3 volume "Robert Historique" and thought, "Ahh...I will now know the definitive answer!". So, I opened the book to page 2728 and have learned that Le Robert capitalizes the entire word....so it's PIED-NOIR. I just thought that was mildly amusing and wanted to share it with you. I guess we'll never know... Lazulilasher (talk) 23:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Socppt13

I have blocked. Thanks for the evidence. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Karmaisking checkuser request not showing up on the list

Hello Gregalton. There is no header Karmaisking showing up currently at WP:RFCU. Your request seems to have got tacked onto the end of DavidYork71. There is also a random item in the list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_fractional-reserve_banking which should not be there. I can't fix this myself. Maybe the DavidYork71 item has one header too many, or something. EdJohnston (talk) 16:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The Karmaisking report was missing some header macros. Please check that it looks correct now! EdJohnston (talk) 04:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the revert on DBMS. Shocked, but pleasantly. On FRB, I still disagree. Banks would still be banks if matching was akin to close to full reserve (after all, there's still a talent and skill in picking "winners" and "payers" rather than the dud loser "defaulters"). Yes, "innovation" would be curtailed, but, in my humble view, unfettered FRB "accelerates" innovation to mad levels and unbalances the equation too heavily in favor of speculators rather than Grandma savers. Banking would still be banking. It would be less speculative, less gamble, less spiv, less "Rock 'n' Roll". Post Basel II and post FAS 157 and post-bubble we will see that the balance was tilted too far in favor of the spiv. Which cruelly burnt savers alive on the pyre of "free market" dogma. And Karma (eventually) runs over Dogma every time.

Oh, and don't be paranoid. I've finished on WP. Too busy on other things. No more contributions so no need to block. It would be fun trying to find the other 6 socks though. Good luck.--Lifeissuffering (talk) 13:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, don't give up!

Hey, you still there? I just came back to see what's going on with you and the monetary theory articles. You're insanely diligent in making sure that Wikipedia's information is actually fairly correct. I noticed, though, that you don't edit as much as you used to. I don't either. That's just my personality, though. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 00:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

I don't want to keep doing this

Delete Money as Debt "rapidly and with salt" (you're piracy background coming through?). Now attacks on monetary reform. Come on, we both know the game. Leave me alone, let me do my little thing on monetary reform, slowly improving the article when I have the time (I've even left the POV tag on to protect innocent women and children). NOTHING on the page is inaccurate. You've just deleted refs. We both know why. "Confidence" is everything in bwanking, ain't it? I know the agenda and I know my place in life (marginal debt slave number 142425635674267) - I've left credit crunch and fractional reserve banking and debt-based monetary system alone in deference to your British ruling class rules. I'm swimming in a very small pool. Let me. - MonetaryCrankster (talk) 04:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Go away, blocked user. You continue to evade a block and then look for sympathy.--Gregalton (talk) 13:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Invitation (moved)

You are invited to look at my user page, where I am making an attempt to start a new article on Money and the Money Supply. Your advice and suggestions are invited Martycarbone (talk) 16:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Crass attacks on DBMS talk page

Keep an eye out. It's not me (I'd never be so crass in my attacks on you. I like you. You complete me).