User talk:Lawrencekhoo

edit count | edit summary usage

Jevons paradox

Thanks for the reference. Is there something that can be done about its absolute nature?

Third, fuel use will definitely decline if increased fuel efficiency is paired with appropriate government intervention.

This strikes me as literally false yet almost vacuous: there's no reason to suppose that any such government intervention exists in all possible cases (this is in regard to "definitely"). It seems vacuous since "appropriate" is not defined, and so it could simply suggest that in most cases a government could simply start a nuclear war that would reduce fuel use by reducing technology and population.

In short, I don't think the old wording (pre-reference) matches the new citation: I expect that the absoluteness of the claim is missing, but it suggests some reasonable course of action rather than claiming that some action exists. Would it be too much to ask you to rewrite the sentence? I don't have easy access to that article -- I don't know that my university library has Ecological Economics.

Actually I think the whole paragraph could use more work, but one step at a time. :)

CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to address your objections. The point that Wackernagel and Rees make is that increased efficiency will always reduce fuel use if a 'green tax' keeps cost of use the same. Let me know if you have any other issues. LK (talk) 02:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

That's great. I didn't want to make the change myself because I didn't have the article. Your changes are good. CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Barnstars for work on the Luzon Empire - Ancient Tondo merger

		The Philippine Barnstar
		{{{lk, I award you this Philippine Barnstar for your contributions to the merge discussion between Luzon Empire and Ancient Tondo. -- Alternativity (talk) 10:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)}}}

		The Rosetta Barnstar
		{{{I also award you this Rosetta Barnstar for your effort in identifying faulty translation and unpublished synthesis in the sources used by the Luzon Empire article. -- Alternativity (talk) 10:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)}}}

Thank you, but I'm not worthy :-) LK (talk) 16:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi. As per your suggestion, I've given much thought to the name of this article, and the appropriateness of a "Kingdom of" format. In light of this, and the existence now of Kingdom of Maynila and Kingdom of Namayan, I'd like to move Ancient Tondo to Kingdom of Tondo. But I'd specifically like to ask if you have objections to it. I've suggested this on talk:Ancient Tondo Thanks. -- Alternativity (talk) 17:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Help

You seem keen on ABCT (not business cycles for some strange reason) so please help out. Please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron Paul...Ron Paul... (talk • contribs) 05:10, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of a template redirect

I have nominated a redirect to a template for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 14:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Subprime timeline

I agree with you that this article is bad. I don't know where to begin. It does not mention financial derivatives! How can you talk about subprime without talking about the role of derivatives or the role of the big investment banks. The timeline should be shelved. You are right that it is a POV fork. Since you seem more experienced with this kind of thing I'd suggest that you put the machinery in motion for that and keep me informed.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 12:58, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Economic freedom

Hi, LK. Would you mind taking a look at Economic Freedom. All attempts to include any reference to views other than those of the Heritage Institute are being reverted by a user with a severe case of WP:OWN. Rather than engage in edit warring, I'm trying to get some fresh perspectives on this.JQ (talk) 12:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Just had a peek at it. Seems like another academics vs non-academics debate.  :(

LK (talk) 05:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello LK--Thanks for poking in on economic freedom. You're right about it currently being a messy mashup. It was pretty coherent previously, but POV and with only one perspective on EF. My contribution to the mashiness is desperately trying to get any material and refs in that I can, hoping it can re-work into a new coherency. CRETOG8(t/c) 06:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I understand. I'll drop in once in a while to help broaden the perspective. LK (talk) 06:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Theory of the firm

Hello--I'd be grateful if you've got any input on this. The article is a bit confused, and mis-named (at least in terms of how things are discussed within economics). I'm not sure the best alternative name, or how to break things up however.

Also, I disagree with your new rating, but I'll save any discussion of that until/unless the article gets repositioned and more coherent. I appreciate the rating you're doing, since I tend to tag and save rating for an unspecified future time. CRETOG8(t/c) 21:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I think perhaps I shouldn't have made the rating. This is not my field, and I've never seriously studied Industrial Organization. I only have a cursory understanding of what the theory of the firm is. I made the rating as it seemed obvious that as a topic within a sub-field, it should not be rated as 'high' importance. I'll help you fend of POV pushers if you like, but I can't really contribute input beyond that. Sorry. LK (talk) 05:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Wage Slavery article

I've written most of the article on wage slavery. I see you've been trying to improve the definition. I want to let you know I like your changes. Feel free to send me an e-mail at mr1001nights@aol.com 99.2.224.110 (talk) 13:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

RFC at WP:NOR-notice

A concern was raised that the clause, "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" conflicts with WP:NPOV by placing a higher duty of care with primary sourced claims than secondary or tertiary sourced claims. An RFC has been initiated to stimulate wider input on the issue. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Just want you to know, I did drop by, but didn't feel that I could add anything useful to the conversation. LK (talk) 08:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of redundant passage in WP:PSTS

Lawrence, regarding this edit, thank you. Sometimes nearly everybody seems to miss the obvious. ... Kenosis (talk) 17:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I try my best. LK (talk) 05:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Ref: CRA page. (Community Reinvestment Act)

The section I edited appears to present info in a POV way, as a one sided argument (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOVFAQ#Other_resources); I'm trying to balance that POV. I gave the opposing POV (NOT my own POV), of Professor Stan Liebowitz.

As of now, all published empirical work (either by academics or the FED) has not shown any relationship between CRA and subprime, as such, the statement that the contention is not backed up by empirical evidence is NPV. Stan Liebowitz's editorial for a newspaper is not a scholarly empirical work.

And The Fed, being one of the parties accused (again, NOT by me) of financial incompetence (allowing the subprime crisis to occur), has its own POV and an incentive (conflict-of-interest) to skew the numbers to "prove" the CRA was of minimal or no importance (many others cited on this page also have such conflicts-of-interest); they are therefore a partisan to the issue on the Wikipedia page, and should be cited as such (whilst citing the partisans on the other side...and citing them as such), instead of citing either partisan side's "evidence" as an authoritative, NEUTRAL (encyclopedic) source, when it is not.

I really don't see how the FED can avoid the blame by NOT blaming CRA. If anything, it seems to me that blaming someone other than themselves would be in their interest. Regardless, the strong contention that a Federal agency cannot be trusted needs to backed up by a good reference, otherwise it's just WP:OR or at best WP:SYN.

If you keep that paragraph as a one-sided argument, then it is you who violates the NPOV policy. So I'd say "Sure, modify my additions, but don't delete them". (NB: As for my minor edit of "they are not economists" that followed that, although I'm stating a fact that's just 100% correct and relevant to their expertise, I don't think it should be included in the final-edit, and though it might appear to be an anti-Fed POV, it's just my attempt to bring attention to the fact that now that there are ECONOMISTS who support The Fed's position, it's a bit redundant (WP:UNDUE?) and really DILUTES a reader's attention from the portion that SUPPORTS The Fed. I'm not trying to be anti-Fed nor pro-Fed, but I also didn't want to delete the non-experts w/o discussion.)

Let me look at the edit again, and I'll post at the page later.

LK (talk) 04:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I've just looked through it and changed the paragraph at the beginning. The whole section appears to present both sides as far as published reliable sources exist, so I don't see the section as one sided. LK (talk) 10:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, I meant the paragraph (not section) was one-sided. Others on the talk page agreed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.155.196.211 (talk) 12:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Wage slavery discussion

Remember that the "some uses" part describes what "Some uses of the term might only refer to...". In other words, even if there was a "correct" use of the term, and even if we agreed as you say, that "low wages by itself is not neccesarily exploitative - a poor subsistence farmer hiring transient farm hands does not engage in wage slavery" that would have no bearing on the fact that "some uses of the term might only refer to low wages..." especially among the general population, which doesn't always adhere to what academics deem "correct" definitions of terms. NeutralityForever (talk) 10:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The uncontroversial use of the term wage slavery is when it is used to refer to situations where power relationships dominate. Conflating this with just low wages is misleading, as the use of wage slavery to refer to only low wages is controversial. LK (talk) 10:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Even if agree w/you, and even if all those people are wrong in using the term "wage slave" to describe those on low wages, the fact is that the sentence is simply describing what "Some uses of the term might only refer to...". So the correctness seems irrelevant. On a different note, the word "wages"might also have different meanings to different people. To you, it seems to mean simply remuneration, capital or means of survival, but to others it doesn't mean that, so that "low wages" would have a different meaning. Notice as well, that by saying that "Some uses of the term might only refer to workers in a coercive situation" you erode the distinction between "some uses" and "Other[] [uses which]...extend the term to cover a wide range of employment relationships in a hierarchical social environment with a coercive and limited set of job-related choices (e.g. working for a boss under threat of starvation, poverty or social stigma). —Preceding unsigned comment added by NeutralityForever (talk • contribs) 10:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, by the same token, I can safely say that debt peonage does not fit the definition of wage slavery. Most people consider debt peonage a different kind of slavery--Debt Slavery

NeutralityForever (talk) 11:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey LK, do you remember that discussion we had about the "pragmatism" of the change from "wage slavery" to "wage work" and your POV allegations about the inclusion of "At about the same time, the rise of big business marginalized skilled workers and increased the numbers of more easily controlled unskilled ones through "scientific management", the open-shop, welfare capitalism and mass violence."? Well, I was finally able to find a free version of that essay describing the "pragmatism" of the change http://socialissues.wiseto.com/Articles/161500532/ and it turns out that it gives remarkably similar explanations and even quotes some of the same authors I quoted, like David Montgomery. It also reveals the shift of "wage slavery" from meaning all wage work, to "low wages", i.e. directly refuting your POV allegations about that issue as well. In contrast, I haven't found any supporting evidence for the inclusion of peonage as the main meaning of wage slavery apart from the producerist "term used to refer to a situation where persons are dependent for a livelihood on the wages earned, especially if the dependency is total and immediate." . Here are a few quotes you may find interesting:

"[T]he structural changes associated with the later stages of industrial capitalism, including increased centralization of production... [declining wages...[and] [t]he loss of competence and independence experienced by skilled labor declining wages [in the late 19th century]" meant that

"A critique that referred to all work as slavery and avoided demands for wage concessions in favor of supporting the creation of the producerist republic (by diverting strike funds towards funding KOL co-operatives, for example) was far less compelling than one that identified the specific conditions of slavery as low wages and posited a plausible and empirically commensurate road to freedom (and manhood): high wages."

Producerist ideology was further eroded "by the influx of women and rural workers, both black and white to the cities, expanding the labor pool and intensifying competition within it....[as well as]... the problem of integrating immigrants from the Slavic countries and Italy, many of whom had been recruited into the organization by factory owners explicitly for the purpose of undermining unionism"

"[T]he immigrant wage slave, who was willing to work for less and to cross picket lines, clearly posed a threat to the American wage earner."

"In sum, the increasing prevalence of wage work and ethnic and race divisions that ran coincidental to skill divisions within the working class resulted in ....erosions of producerist contents of wage slavery."

Also "the relations between the AFL and the KOL, were capable of limiting what opportunities were available to articulate resonant producerist claims."

"[T]he movement constituency elected to sacrifice ideological centrality and consistency for the purpose of maintaining empirical credibility. This path, however, also has implications for movement continuance. Once the KOL was no longer able to present a comprehensive ideological and cultural alternative to the trade union movement, there was little incentive for movement members to continue their allegiance."

"[A]fter 1887, as the KOL began to disintegrate as a movement, members and credibility shifted to other labor organizations, mainly the AFL. Without an organization to carry its host ideology, wage slavery no longer referred to a real alternative of wage freedom, nor did it articulate concrete strategy by which it could be achieved."

I think it would be good to condense this material into a few words in the article that explain what the "pragmatism" was all about. NeutralityForever (talk) 12:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Edits of Jevons paradox and Rebound Effect (conservation)

Could we discuss things? You found something unexpected in my edit, and just reverted the old versions. This is a group process. A complex systems view like mine and an economist's view are bound to have some differences, but we're trying to talk about the same physical world I think.

For example, I adjusted the definition of 'rebound effect', calling it a 'misunderstanding' of how efficiency gains effect the whole economic system. Your definition presented it as if it were an expected minor effect. The difference in tone is due to my looking at the effect of efficiency gains on the economic multiplier, and you seem to be looking at it as a diminishing echo effect. In the particular case it depends on how much of a bottleneck for other things the efficiency gain removes. The way business likes it they find efficiencies that have large bottleneck removal effects, like cutting appliance watter use letting them expand housing subdivisions and things.

It seems the main reason we are talking about the subject at all, though, is that so much reliance is being placed on increasing efficiency to reduce our impacts on the earth, and for a long list of reasons it clearly seems to normally have the opposite effect. Efficiency investments have long been highly effective in increasing productivity through technology or knowledge that increases business outputs.

It's interesting that we can't trace all aspects of the distributed effect, but we can readily see it in the whole system measures. Energy use has long grown at nearly twice the rate of increasing energy efficiency. http://www.synapse9.com/issues/EffLearn_grow.jpg Being one of the main business competitive strategies, and means of increasing output is a major reason it seems. It's been a reliable product multiplier. Will it stop doing that now? My concern is how heavily the national energy and conservation strategies rely on the long evident rebound effect happening. The implication is achieving efficiency gains so dramatic that they somehow cause the two curves to cross and diverge in the opposite directions. Do you see what I'm talking about? Please email. id-at-synapse9.com --Pfhenshaw (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from, but you need some source for the arguments you are making. Remember that Wikipedia shouldn't include original research or synthesis, and all arguments presented here should have been articulated already in some other reliable source. I'm happy to see the addition to the page, if you can cite a source for your viewpoint.

On a minor note, I think that calling something a 'misunderstanding' may be too value-laden a term for Wikipedia. Best to stick to more neutral terms.

I've also just revisited the page and rearranged the presentation in a manner that perhaps addresses your problems with it. LK (talk) 11:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

[ph]Lawrence, I don't see any way you changed the misleading definition of the rebound effect. It still says the effect is well understood, when that is only the opinion of people not considering normal whole system growth stimulus efficiency has always provided. I found one recent link that discusses it Dec 08 Energy Efficiency as Economic Stimulus and a more definitive 1999 article that should,http://www.springerlink.com/index/V30618TNK777846U.pdf%7CIssues in modeling induced technological change in energy, environmental, and climate policy], but I don't have the $35fee. Isn't it in all economic texts too? What is less understood may be how whole systems respond to individual changes by propagating on the paths of profitability.

One defect of trying to present settled understanding of confused subjects is that it leaves out the open questions. We really should be putting the open questions in their proper place, no? Perhaps we could say, "Efficiency improvements generally stimulate economic growth and increases all resource uses as a result. It remains open to question whether there are efficiency improvements that have a net effect of conserving resources as this question is unstudied". Of course, another open question is whether the OECD plan to decouple growth from resource use is meaningful. That has major conservation rebound effect implications too. Perhaps we could fix the syntax and include a paragraph on some of these key open questions.--Pfhenshaw (talk) 01:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, the theory behind the rebound effect itself is well-understood by economists, although there is disagreement over the size and importance of the effect. Apologies if I didn't make it clear, but I had hoped that the lead to the Rebound effect (conservation) article spells it out clearly. I have read the two papers you link to, and don't find any fundamental differences between their understanding of the rebound effect and my understanding of it.

The system effect that you talk about is actually covered in the article as it now stands, in section 2.2 Economy wide effects. It's quite well understood by economists, and was modelled by Harry Saunders in his paper on the Khazzom-Brooks Postulate.

Also, at the bottom of the lead it says: "in which case, efficiency improvements may paradoxically increase energy use", which I gather, is your point. So I don't really understand where you are coming from. Exactly what do you want the page to say in addition?

LK (talk) 06:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

[ph] I guess it's mainly two things, 1)the need to include the system multiplier effect of efficient technology in the basic concept, and 2)that policies to reduce externalities that stimulate growth will likely multiply them as "doing more with less" has always done.

I still think an "open questions" paragraph would be good. "Well understood" generally means that the questions are all settled and that is clearly not the case here. There are also a large 'rebound effects' in the learning curve problem of efficiencies, making them a sharply limited resource with all kinds of high impact externalities and points of vanishing returns. If policies to prevent externalities that would harm the economies won't just be 'blunted' in their positive effects (as the article now suggests) but actually multiply the negative effects, that has it's own set of major secondary rebound effects is the point.

I think I found part of the conceptual problem. In looking through my books on the history of economic thought Silk, Heilbroner & Spiegel, there's little mention of efficiency, but using technology to "do more with less" has been central to economic theory since Adam Smith. We seem to have two words, 'efficiency' & 'technology', referring to the same thing but having opposite meanings... --Pfhenshaw (talk) 14:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

We seem to be coming from different academic backgrounds, because I'm finding it hard to understand what you are saying – you're using words differently than what I understand them to mean. What do you mean by a 'system multiplier effect'? and 'policies to reduce externalities ... actually multiply the negative effects,'?

[ph]You're perceptive, thanks for asking rather than just jumping to conclusions. I'm a general systems scientist with a diverse background in physics, design, micro-climate and wide studies in other fields with major ones in economics and paleontology and whole system energy measures. To me whatever actions result in increasing a system's rate of increase have a 'multiplier effect'. Investment sometimes does that, same with tax cuts, same with removing a technology bottleneck. I tend to think of how the physical feedbacks work more than the financial ones, maybe that's what sounds odd to you. The subject of how our way of solving one creates other problems is a large subject. It might be how saving water in arid lands to increase development creates problems the people promoting water conservation would be horrified by, but just were just not considered.

In economics, (negative) externalities are bad things that happen to other people, an unrealized cost of production, if you get rid of the negative externality, there will be nothing but good effects.

[ph]I think that is generally not true. Whether the secondary and tertiary effects decay or multiply is the question, an almost no one ever asks that question as far as I can tell. I think it's a property of our 'sufficing' as a way of making choices. We define a problem as finding something sufficient to address a symptom we noticed, and not to study the secondary effects of our solution. I do sustainability consulting and suggest people plan solutions 'over the hill', not just 'up the hill', and know where the whole effect is going by looking for what environmental reaction will reverse any direction of change.

Since I'm not sure where you're coming from, the only thing I can say is, go ahead and write up what you want to add, but make sure it's properly sourced, and that its not original research WP:OR or synthesis WP:SYN. However, do keep in mind that among economists at least, we think the theory itself is pretty much settled, and it's the size of the rebound effect that's open to debate.

[ph]I'll give that a try. With system effects the distinction between one rebound and another would seem more whether they initiate positive or negative feedbacks, and either multiply or decay as they propagate. I think the real reason conserving resources would usually have a positive feedback rebound is that the things people think to conserve are profitable to conserve too. I think that tends to be the pointer to which kinds of conservation remove bottlenecks that allow the expansion of other things and end increasing the use of the thing conserved. There was a recent study of drip irrigation to protect an aquifer in Texas stimulating development that accelerated depletion of the aquifer. Much of this is "invisible hand" detached from anyone's choices, so hard to trace. It tends to only show in whole system behaviors like the steady improvement in energy efficiency over the years corresponding to matching steady increase in energy use about twice as fast. The whole world seems to believe that efficiency automatically is going to be the kind that reduces impacts (decaying rebound), but commit to making it profitable, and industry is going to most surely pick whatever technology removes their bottlenecks to growth the best(multiplying rebound).

You make an interesting point about the use of the term efficiency. In economics, there is no such confusion. We usually mean pareto efficiency, whether or not we are getting the most we can given technology and resources. In common parlance efficiency and technology gets mixed up, and the page reflects this. I should go through it and see if I can clarify it a bit.

LK (talk) 14:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

thanks --Pfhenshaw (talk) 15:37, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You're right about most people assuming that the carry-on effects just fade away instead of multiplying. It's a problem for any microeconomic analysis, and generally just ignored. We (economists) know it's a problem, but if we don't assume that the effects fade away instead of reinforcing, no microeconomic analysis can be done. In macroeconomics there's a less of a problem, as we are trying to model the whole system – but you can still say that we assume quite a lot to make the system tractable. However, the whole thing seems to work reasonably well, both macro and micro analysis; there are many questions that we can't answer, but the answers we do have correspond pretty well with empirical observation. Or, at least that's what we think, others may disagree.  ;-) --LK (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Explaining to policy makers (the public) a micro-economic effect that leads them to expect self-limiting reverse effects from conservation efforts, when multiplying reverse effects are rather more likely, is just the kind of "open issue" that you might mention. That's of particular interest when the purpose in people's minds is to act to avoid dangerous levels of environmental stress by improving the efficiency of everything. If it does the opposite, they'd want to do something else. That conflict seems not to be appreciated in the writing of your comments above. I'm sorry I didn't yet get to drafting the section on open issues yet, been busy, and also not sure how to frame them to fit your model. I'm a physical systems scientist, after all. Maybe you could start by explaining why the macro economic multiplier of rebound effects is inappropriate to mention here, that would give me a better sense of how to work within your construct. Regards --Pfhenshaw (talk) 22:53, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I thought the the section on "Economy wide effects: New technology creates new production possibilities in and increases economic growth." covered exactly that. The section is a bit thin right now, and it's implication should perhaps be spelled out in more detail, but IMO, that's the correct framework to use, as it's the framework currently used by energy economists. Could I get a source on what you mean by the 'macro economic multiplier of rebound effects'? How it is different from the economic growth effects already mentioned in the article? From the graph that you sent me above, I'm guessing that you mean that it has something to do with the observation that energy use and energy-efficiency have both be growing over time? If so, the correlation could be spurious, not causal, as, when a society develops its only natural that both increase over time. Can you point me to some textbooks or articles that outline your viewpoint on how greater energy-efficiency affects energy use? LK (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

what it seems to miss is pointing out the major misconception being used around the world that making industry more efficient will reduce it's impacts. If the origin of that and it's major import are not up front, then they're not being mentioned at all. I fixed the page again. Please don't step on it again. I'm trying to limit the jarring appearance common business practice and government policy do not take into account the basic macro-economic effects of their self-interest choices, but that seems to be the case, and needs to be mentioned up front.--Pfhenshaw (talk) 22:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Apart from grammar and style issues, I've got two fundamental problems with what you are trying to add. 1) The academic community is still debating the size of the rebound effect. It is not clear at all that increases in efficiency necessarily lead to increased use. You seem to want to emphasize that it must. 2) You contend that the theory doesn't take into account the macro rebound, and that current theory doesn't understand what is going on – such an argument is fundamentally WP:OR. We're supposed to report current theoretical and empirical findings, not our opinion that current theory is wrong.

And actually, my reading of the literature is that economists are pretty clear theoretically about what's going on, it's just unclear exactly what the size of the various effects are. Also, economists tend to believe that the rebound effect tends to greater than 100% over the long run, whereas environmentalists tend to believe that its negligible.

LK (talk) 10:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

And yes, I agree completely now with your thesis of what is, and has been going on there. It really is a mostly rambling diatribe that is not neutral... is unfocused and obviously in love with an extremely narrow p.o.v. that seeks to lecture and hector... and lead... rather than inform. Keep me informed if I can be of any help. It is not an article I am focused on, as to interest particularly... but I will do what I can to try to improve it. skip sievert (talk) 22:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection problem and new section in "wage slavery" article

The article currently has a semi-protection lock on it until March, which means that only "established users" can edit it. I apparently don't qualify, though you know from our debates and discussions, that I'm well acquainted with the article. As I think I told you, I wrote most it. I started working on it at around the end of the summer of 2007, but I didn't open an actual account until recently. Do you know what I could do to achieve the "established user" status?

Also, please see the wage slavery discussion page and tell me what you think about the proposal for a new section called "Anti-capitalist Perspectives" NeutralityForever (talk) 10:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

You can gain established editor status by making a certain number (I don't know the number) of unreverted contributions to Wikipedia. What we as a community really want are editors that are not too wedded to a particular topic or a particular point of view; editors who are here to make a good encyclopedia, not to make sure a particular page reads in a particular way. (We distrust single purpose accounts.) Hence we appreciate most, those people who wander around contributing and fixing things in a wide variety of pages. Also, since we are a diverse group of people with strong views on many things, we must insist on strict adherence to community rules, like WP:NOR, WP:SYN, WP:NPV, WP:SOURCE, WP:SOCK and WP:POLITE. If you think you can put aside your biases (we all have them), can strictly adhere to community rules, and want to contribute to creating a good encyclopedia, not pushing a particular viewpoint or using wikipedia to promulgate the Truth! (WP:SOAP), then join the community, wander around, fix things, and pretty soon you will be an 'established editor'. LK (talk) 15:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Your request has been granted :)))

After reviewing the evidence I concur that the user you mentioned is a sockpuppet of Karmaisking. I've blocked him. Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 09:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks! :-) --LK (talk) 09:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Neo-Capitalism

An article that you have been involved in editing, Neo-Capitalism, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neo-Capitalism. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the star! It's very much appreciated, thank you !! Professor marginalia (talk) 15:42, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

:) CRETOG8(t/c) 00:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

And thanks again!

From me JQ (talk) 00:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar!

And much more importantly, thanks for your tireless efforts. I have been less active here, partly due to fatigue with some of the more disruptive editors/socks, but mostly because busy elsewhere. But really, it is very encouraging to me to see how much things have improved and much of that is due to you.--Gregalton (talk) 06:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Return of agitprop truth giver

Removed original synthethis/communist/anarchy agitprop from single purpose returned editor. Possible sock puppet? Wage slavery skip sievert (talk) 16:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I'll keep a close eye on the article. Let me know if there's anything specific that you'd like me to do. LK (talk) 17:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

"Let me know if there's anything specific that you'd like me to do."??? He made 2 reverts and asked you to do a 3rd. You are acting as a sockpuppet for skip. NeutralityForever (talk) 19:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaken. He did not ask me to do anything. I reverted on my own beliefs. You mistake being polite for a conspiracy against you, which I may add, is not the proper way to behave on wikipedia. LK (talk) 20:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, if that's true I would ask you to honestly answer my post in the wage slavery discussion explaining the 5 changes I made. I would like to hear some explanation of which ones you think constitute "synthesis". Because I've taken a 100% factual-verifiable approach. NeutralityForever (talk) 21:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

You were the one that asked me to discuss he issues, why didn't you respond at all??? NeutralityForever (talk) 13:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Dude, give me some time! I've been busy over on gift economy. I've started a reply over at the discussion page of wage slavery, lets keep it there? Thanks, LK (talk) 13:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Save the Netbooks

Thanks. It's worth mentioning that notability is rapidly rising thanks to this scoop too. Anyway the backlash against WP:COI has been quite spectacular, and disappointing given the genuine effort that went into making the article as neutral as possible. -- samj _in^out 19:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

What's up Larry?????

Do not erase critical content, CONSULT! It is of extreme importance that people making technology decisions begin to think about the wider rebound effects they are largely unaware of. A page like this devoted to the subject and seeming to an average reader to cover it, needs to make prominent mention of the largest of them. Using better technology so businesses can be more efficient, and reduce their unit impacts, is a primary cause of business growth and the multiplying rebound effects which that has always produced. There is a major conflicting interest and it needs to be mentioned. Please all, consult on how we can do this and don't just erase. --Pfhenshaw (talk) 03:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Is that not clear? I ask you to consult me on how to make this entry a credible public service. We differ on style and are interested in different questions, but that doesn't change the fact that our "client" in this case is the reader. Is that not correct?

You've got it backwards. The burden of proof is on the person who wants to add disputed material. Thus far, you have shown NO sources to back up your opinion on the subject. Further, you refuse to engage on the talk page, preferring instead to put snarky comments into the lead of the article (which is highly inappropriate). Let's keep the talk on the talk page of the article. LK (talk) 04:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

William Holl the Younger

Please respect the "in use" tag when you come across it. ciao Rotational (talk) 07:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You are misusing 'in use' tags. They are only supposed to be there for a short time signifying that someone is actually actively editing the page. They're not supposed to signify ownership, and prevent other people from editing the page. Furthermore, you're reverting to a section heading style that doesn't follow the Manual of Style. You're breaking community guidelines. Please stop. LK (talk) 09:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The tag does read "several hours" - and gives you the right to remove it if that period has been exceeded. For you to interpret my motives is presumptuous, and to further divine "ownership" is impertinent. My original message was extremely polite and I'm amazed at the negativity you are able to read into it. ciao Rotational (talk) 14:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Considering that all you did was to revert my edit and reinstall the 'in use' tag 12 hours later, I think I am more than justified in coming to the conclusion that I did. And it was rude and pointy of you to put an in use tag on my talk page. And then to top it off, to edit my own comments on my talk page is too much. You are being impolite. LK (talk) 05:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks! NJGW (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Pennyseven

User Pennyseven is, I believe, Nicolaas Smith, an editor who has been blocked many times for sockpuppeteering. He is also pushing his own book, and blog, real value accounting: see this diff. Since he and I have had disagreements in the past and I have other things to do, and more importantly, since you may have a constructive relationship with him, it would probably be more effective if you could interact with him to keep conflict of interest and other issues in mind.

And yes, Pennyseven, I am quite aware that you will read this and accuse me of an evil secret conspiracy against you. You can leave accusations on my own talkpage.--Gregalton (talk) 20:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying. I needed a break from wikidrama for a while. After looking at the histories of Nicolaas Smith and PennySeven, I would tend to agree with you that they are the same person. However, I have no problems with a user with a checkered past coming back, as long as they have reformed and agree to play by the rules. I also agree that Constant Purchasing Power Accounting is getting a little out of control, and as it stands now, it's not exactly a credit to wikipedia. However, no one is disputing his version of the article (perhaps because it's an obscure topic), and I'm loathe to get involved in a topic I know little about, except perhaps for style issues. I'll drop PennySeven a note about the issues that you have, but frankly speaking, I'ld rather not get involved in any disputes right now. LK (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Economic methodology

Thank you, Lawrence. Sorry about that. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 12:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)