User talk:Geremy.Hebert/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Speedy deletion declined: Drug policy of the Third Reich

Hello Geremy.Hebert. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Drug policy of the Third Reich, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: doesn't appear speedyable, but definitely needs rewriting (and possibly WP:AFD). Thank you. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Social market economy

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Social market economy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 22:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution to Talk:Social_market_economy#Appropriate_lead_section. After thinking about your comment I expanded the origins and the later development (and added some excellent sources). Would you like to evaluate the expanded proposal? --Pass3456 (talk) 21:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

But the "excellent sources" do not verify the suggested assertions. --Mr. Mustard (talk) 21:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Mustard uses sources like "Spending Without Taxation: FILP and the Politics of Public Finance in Japan" with no deeper connection to the topic. You Geremy.Hebert may be a lot more competent to evaluate sources. All of my sources are accessable via the given google books links.--Pass3456 (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

But my sources verifies the suggested assertions.--Mr. Mustard (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

__ I'm not sure what animosity each of you hold against the other to bring you to battle on my talk page but I would ask that you wait until I can make some sort of assessment regarding the topic at hand.Geremy.Hebert (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry Geremy, they've done the same on mine ^^' MIVP - (Can I Help?) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 22:31, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Alright I've made an attempt at a rewrite here, you can review it's alterations via history. It seems english may not be your native languages which made reading difficult at times. That's what prompted me to start editing and then I got carried away. It also has come to my attention that you two and FelMol may forever be at odds within this subject. For better or for worse please keep this in mind, that the foundation of a wiki article is facts. Economics in and of itself is murky water for the uninitiated and even more so when speaking about socio-political economics. Rife with inflection and interpretation. Trying to speak in layman's terminology is akin to stuffing 10 pounds of sh!t in a 5 pound bag. You have my permission Pass3456 to use my revisions as you see fit without limitations if you so desire. If you wish to continue this discussion please move my revision to your RfC talk page and let us continue there.Geremy.Hebert (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

It is correct that Pass3456, FelMol and me are not native english speakers and of course this makes this difficult affair even worse. This controversy between Pass3456, FelMol and me persists for many years in german wikipedia and now it escalated to english wikipedia. Pass3456 reverted an edit of me without argumentation [1] and now the article is blocked in this revision. Pass3456 and FelMol never gives reasons for their reverts. Unless Pass3456 and FelMol gives reasons we will not make progress. I am convinced that it is the wrong way to make permanent new proposals while we do not reach clarification in terms of what is controversial. I try to reach clarification for months. I can see no reason why we have to change the current blocked lead section. The current proposal of Pass3456 is absolutly inacceptable. Already the first sentence is inacceptable. To write that SME is "a blend" (asserted only by the first source) is problematic because Müller-Armack always emphasized that SME is not a mixture. The wording "blend" can cause a misunderstanding that SME is something like a "mixed economy" though it's not [2][3]. Free union bargaining is just one minor aspect of many and I can see no reason to emphasize this minor aspect in the lead section. To write SME based on a welfare state (asserted only by the first source) is dreadful because Müller-Armack and Erhard were bitter opponents of the welfare state [4][5] and according to Erhard nothing is more unsocial than the welfare state [6][7][8]. This are just a few examples and I can continue to make mincemeat of this proposal sentence by sentence. Of course Pass3456 knows all of this. But for a few years in Germany some groups like Die Linke tries to occupy the label "social market economy" and want to change the meaning of the concept. They want to reinterpret the concept as a socialist brainchild and this is the reason why Pass3456, FelMol and me will forever be at odds within this subject. The article is blocked contemporary and as long as Pass3456 do not explain what is wrong with the contemporary lead section I can see no reason to change it. --Mr. Mustard (talk) 15:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Your citation does not provide sufficient evidence to counter the definition of 'mixed economy'. It only proves that those who drafted it did not want a 'mixed economy'. Regardless it is wholly a mixed or 'blend' economy (Mixed economy is an economic system in which both the state and private sector direct the economy) by definition and the lead sentence is sustainable with or without references. It can be said that all economies are a blend of the simple statement 'supply and demand'. Jayron32 blocked it because of the constant revisions (more than 3 in 24hrs per user). I even tried to provide proof it was a successful model for some duration, a matter you all seem to have left out. Nobody cares what political group did what, the article is meant to describe the system itself. Nobody cares what political agenda was involved...CDU, centre left, center blah blah blah blah nobody cares if the two guys were 'bitter opponents' nor do they care about an individuals opinions about a 'anti social welfare state'. A political compass needle has nothing to do with the definition of Social market economy. I could say the 'four principles' Pass3456 uses are redundant but it helps tell someone that doesn't know any better what it [is]. You guys can dig up books and references all you want it doesn't help anyone's individual pov because as I stated they are more or less open to interpretation. I find the current proposal a suitable interpretation for mass consumption. Does that make me yet another illiterate neophyte in your eyes? More than likely and I'm well prepared to contest any counterpoint you have to my positions.Geremy.Hebert (talk) 15:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I don't understand what you mean. Do you really want to substitute the current defintion "The Social Market Economy is a distinctive economic and socio-political model developed and implemented in West Germany after..." by the definition "The Social Market Economy is an economic system based on a blend of market capitalism with union bargaining, and a welfare state..." despite the originators of the SME regarded the SME as the counter model to the welfare state? --Mr. Mustard (talk) 16:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

yeah sure and I'll explain why. '..distinctive economic and socio-political model..' Now what does that explain about [the] system? Nothing, it could be describing any system or any model, it is too broad. Any and every economic model is 'distinctive'. We want to go deeper into what it is, henceforth is somewhat subject to personal interpretation. Even the most learned scholars will argue, it's how they get their tenure in universities because they are good at convincing people that their interpretation is [the] correct interpretation. I can agree to the inclusion of the words 'socio-political model' but the sentence by itself it does nothing to help the reader understand what a social market economy is.Geremy.Hebert (talk) 16:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but I still don't understand what you mean. Do you really think that the characterization as "welfare state" help the reader understand what a social market economy is despite the originators of the SME conceived the SME as a counter model to the welfare state? This conveys no sense to me. --Mr. Mustard (talk) 17:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

It is not the sole characterization is it? I've told you two times now nobody cares that "originators of the SME conceived the SME as a counter model to the welfare state" It is irrelevant but you are like the dog with a chew toy and won't see any other way! What they 'thought' has absolutely nothing to do with the definition of SME! Is it a welfare system? no. does it contain elements of union bargaining? yes. Does it contain elements of capitalism? yes! And finally does it contain elements of a welfare system?! read the last sentence of the second paragraph! I'm not sure you have the necessary capacity to see beyond this contrarian stance you so adamantly defend. It may be a language barrier but I'm starting to think that it is not.Geremy.Hebert (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Discount-licensing.com

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Discount-licensing.com. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 23:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)