MrVoluntarist

Hi, I'm Mr. Voluntarist. Please post any messages you have for me here.

Hi people reading my talk page. A lot of you seem to be longtime Wikipedia contributors, but seem to insert your own opinions and research into the article. It would be a good idea to check out some of these things:

• What Wikipedia is not
• Wikipedia's NPOV policies

Anti-semitism

"Perhaps you should take the Holocaust seriously?" Personally I find that the insinuation that someone is racist a personal attack in itself. Eightball 03:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

And when someone casually dismissed the idea that racism still occurs... what do you call that? MrVoluntarist 03:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

No one did that. Everyone knows that racism is around. The idea that you are putting forth, the idea that at least one of our editors and one, perhaps many, of our administrators, are racist because of Henry Rank is ranked first; hell, I wasn't even aware that Ford was racist before today, and yet you say that this makes people racist? That offends me, I'm sure it offends the man who created the image, and it's an offense to the entire community. Eightball 03:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Why didn't anyone stop and say, "Hey, how come only one of these in the list is a real historic figure, while the others are generic names?" That should have set off flags right there. And you don't have to be actively racist to be racist. Mere ignorance and dismissiveness is also racist. MrVoluntarist 03:24, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how to say this without starting a personal attack again (which I apologize for, honestly, I try not to blow up), but let me just say that you, sir, are the personification of the type of people that I believe ruin this world; the type of people that always assume the worst in people for their own personal gain. I just want you to ADMIT that there is a great chance that no one created this with any intention of racism. Why can't you believe that there are good people? Eightball 03:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay, just for the record -- the whole idea that the WP admins are out to "get" the Jew is ridiculous. But on the other hand, we have to watch out for the pro-socialist, anti-rich people bias among Wikipedia contributors, which I think amounts to a kind of crypto-anti-Semitism. See Anti-globalization and Anti-Semitism. Let's be more careful about who we call "number one" on example ballots. MrVoluntarist 03:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

They are all fairly generic and, more importantly, noncontroversial names to most readers. I and the hundreds of other editors that touched the article, for example, were completely unaware of any controversy around Henry Ford until you brought it up. Still, please refrain from personal attacks on Wikipedia - directly challenging someone in the manner you did is not a productive way to improve images in the encyclopedia. Scott Ritchie 03:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

All I want to say is, I'm proud of you fellas. You all kept your head on a swivel, and that's what you gotta do when you find yourself thrust into the middle of vicious cock fight. Eightball 03:42, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

ARE YOU CALLING ME A COCK?!?!?! j/k man MrVoluntarist 03:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry about the names

It was useful to know that the choice of "Henry Ford" as an example name was possibly offensive, and I'm trying to get it changed wherever it occurs, in my images and others', although I don't have access to an image editor at the moment.

You could have made your point more tactfully. You could have posted on a relevant talk page, "Hey, it's possibly offensive for Henry Ford to be number 1 on the example ballot" instead of accusing various people of being anti-Semitic. Then people could get to fixing the images faster rather than spending all the time responding to your lack of good faith.

rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I second that emotion. jengod 03:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

You're right, I was a bit too emotional. Okay, WAY too emotional. There are better ways to handle conflicts like this. I just started panicking because it was like fifteen minutes (or so it seemed) after I posted the complaint on the discussion page, and I couldn't think of what else to do, and that was such a long response time. None of that excuses it, of course. I'll stay truer to policy in the future so we don't have these harmful conflicts in the future. MrVoluntarist 03:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

jengod, anyone who gets me singing is the man. I third that emotion. Eightball 03:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you take the Holocaust seriously?

No you do not. Otherwise you wouldn't be trivializing it with that bullshit about the main page. 65.27.76.238 16:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. This is another example of a holier than thou, PC do-gooder gone mad, hell bent on monitoring all our articulations for traces of discriminatory statement. As I said on the main discussion page, by altering the image, we have told this person that his paranoid antics are acceptable, when, unequivocally, they are not.

Edit summaries and concerns thereto

• My edit summary made clear that the objection was based on the reported POV content of the target article. However, that is not reason for removing a relevant link - it is a reason to fix the article it points to. I have already tagged Socialism and Gold with a {{cleanup}} tag (in addition to the {{NPOV}} tag it already had) and I have made a couple of alterations to it. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Right. Like I said, that may not have been a good reason, or a reason in accordance with Wikipedia standards, but a justification was given. What would happen if people referenced every reason they disagreed with as "no justification given"? Try to make your edit summaries more accurate. MrVoluntarist 05:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

About Talk:Capitalism

Anyone overviewing the Talk:Capitalism page can see that much, perhaps a majority, of the discussion has degenerated into a debate on the underlying issues. This impedes progress on the article and should be stopped. Also, my comment on that page was specifically directed at everyone, not you specifically. I know you are not the only one who has done this. It wasn't meant as a specific criticism of you. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Call it what you want. The discussion going on concerns what material is encyclopedic and NPOV. THAT IS WHAT PEOPLE ARE SUPPOSED TO DO ON THE TALK PAGE. I don't know anyone debating the merits of capitalism. MrVoluntarist 05:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism

Hi, thanks for your contribution, but could you please keep discussion out of the disputes section. This is purely for my benefit as it gives me a better understanding of what the nature of the dispute is. Thanks :) - FrancisTyers 06:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Could you also move FluteyFlake's comment's (number 4) currently, since it's a response to me rather than a separate dispute. MrVoluntarist 06:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Haha, I'm glad you agree :) My apologies if I seemed a bit pushy, just I get this definition crap a lot and its a distraction from writing an encyclopaedia, oh and I have access to this fancy subscription so I figured I may as well use it! :) - FrancisTyers 01:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Vulgar libertarians, we are

Howdy and good call on nominating vulgar libertarianism for deletion. The link that was provided (the one from some "anarchist" website, about Chile) is probably the worst example of a straw man argument I've ever seen. Paul 22:04, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Glad to be appreciated. Do you think there are some more reasons I can give? As far as I can see, Carson started using it, and it hasn't really picked up. MrVoluntarist 00:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

definitions of capitalism

Wikidictionary cannot be used as a sole reference - it's wikipedia rules! Wikipedia articles should not use other Wikipedia articles as sources. Wikilinks are not a substitute for sources. See also Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary -- max rspct leave a message 15:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Few! Good thing I didn't reference Wikidictionary! Good thing I limited myself to citations of real dictionaries, which were collected on Wikiquote! Good thing Wikipedia policies say Wikipedia articles should begin with a definition of the term! MrVoluntarist 17:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

But obviously not dictionary defs -max rspct leave a message 00:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Are we talking abou the same article? The capitalism article defines it first under common usage, then, when going into entymology, references dictionaries, since it's relevant at that point. What do you want it to do? Do you even know? MrVoluntarist 01:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism

Thank you for your comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Individualist anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. I have closed the debate as no consensus. Please note that this does not preclude further discussion of eventual disposition of the article, including keeping, merging, redirection, or a further nomination for deletion. Again, thank you for your calm and level-headed comments, they are much appreciated. -- Jonel | Speak 03:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Your warning other users that I am "a jew"

Hi, could you please explain this talk page comment you made on Jan 28 [1]. Is it an attempt at provocation through racist behaviour, an attempt at humour based on the assumption that User:200.125.110.99 is racist, or something else that I fail to understand? — Hillel 09:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

That message was intended for our Spanish-speaking amigo, not you. And if you want to call me anti-Semitic, think twice. I'm the one who led the charge to remove the "vote for Henry Ford" picture from the main page when voting systems was a featured article. See above on this page. MrVoluntarist 19:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Anarchism

Please stop. If you continue to remove comments from Talk:Anarchism, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --cesarb 14:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Statements attributed to you

Hi, you complain that I "attribute statements to you". I'd like to know where I'm going wrong and how to fix things so the two of us can cooperate efficiently :-)

First of all, I would like to apologise for the following comment

So this was a major or significant discovery? I'm not at all sure that you're saying that.

It does indeed seem to imply that you said that the discovery was major or significant, until you get to the second sentence, where I clearly state that I'm not sure that was what you're saying. I should, instead, have made that the first sentence, and said something along the lines of

I am not at all sure that you are actually saying this, but you seem to be implying that the discovery was major or significant (i.e. notable), because only then would it be Wikipedia's job to help people link a "a discovery later, or one before [...] back to this one".

As for other statements, I'll try to be more careful. If there's any specific thing in the past that you would like to talk about, please feel free to do so. I'm assuming good faith, and I hope you will continue to do so for my edits even if we're off to a rocky start.

Again, any issues, please feel free to use my talk page, or the "email this user" option.

Thanks!

RandomP 02:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes it's hard to assume good faith, when you brush off hard questions with "it's a math/physics thing, you wouldn't understand." Now, as for this particular matter, I didn't say that the discovery in the picture was major (though it may be). It's just that it's a good picture, and in the caption I as a reader of the article appreciated knowing who discovered them, even if I personally haven't heard of them before. I never once claimed that the discovery was itself signficant. While it may be, that wasn't a part of my argument. MrVoluntarist 02:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I'll reply to the "brushing off" thing here. The other issue really belongs on the article's talk page, as it makes a point that I (and, I'm willing to bet, at least one of the other one or two opposing editors) had not yet considered.

As far as I remember, the only time I did that was with regard to my slip of referring to a certain economical theory as "classical". I apologised for that. There's nothing about the usage you wouldn't (or, at least, couldn't) understand! A "classical theory" is one that's so widely accepted that usually no further sources are given. For example:

• Newtonian physics, when considering relativistic or quantum matters
• The decomposability of finitely-generated abelian groups. I have no idea who to attribute this to, it's just "classical". (And, yes, I'm lazy.)
• Economics based on strict assumptions of [[homo economicus|"economic rationality"], and a strict separation between economic and non-economic activity. As in the first case, it's clear today that that's a simplification that just doesn't hold up in real life under extreme conditions. As in the second case, I have no idea who properly to attribute this to, though chances are most introductory textbooks treat the matter (and that's where I got it from).

It's slang. It was impossible for you to recognise you, and had I taken greater care to proofread it wouldn't have happened.

I'll try to take more care in the future

RandomP 03:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I've never heard it used that way. From what I know, it always refers to some older kind of theory. For example, classical mechanics does not mean "mechanics that everyone excepts so much you don't need a source"; it means the mechanics of Newton and Euler, which have since been *replaced* by models that account for relativistic effects. You can still find sources for "classical" theories. "Classical economics" refers to the economics of Adam Smith through much of the nineteenth century. It happens to include some assumptions of homo oeconomicus. In any case, your use of it contradicts what you just said; you just agreed that's called "classical" despite no one using it today".

By contrast, your "classical" theory of investment is unsupported by anyone. You couldn't name one source for it. I've never heard anyone say anything like "unless it draws an income or an imputed income, or will draw an income or imputed income after you sell it, it's not an investment". Your use of "classical" there was not justified by any precedent; it was quite clearly a case of "here's my theory, I don't have a source, let me lend it a false aura of credibility". MrVoluntarist 03:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

If you want to go over this, and quote what "my" theory of economics says, I'm happy to do so here, in order to better understanding one another. If you're happy to let the matter drop, so am I. Please indicate which is the case.

There's a subtle matter of fact, on which I feel I should correct you on: the classical theory of Newton has by no means been replaced! The effects of special relativity and quantum mechanics are still not known to be compatible (see quantum gravity), and until a consistent theory generalising both has been accepted, there are three branches of physics; the one based on Newton's laws, unchanged, might still be the most significant, because much of engineering is based on it. The Navier-Stokes equations, for example, might be even less amenable to being solved if they weren't based on classical mechanics.

Just to point that out (I haven't, really, so far), I am now convinced that it is acceptable to refer to a given amount of gold as an investment, though whether investment activity is taking place is something I am not sure about.

RandomP 03:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I just want to know the name of a theorist who has promoted your theory of investment (that requires there to be an income or imputed income at some point). It's really for my personal edification, since this is one of my areas of interest, no pun intended. From what I know, at least since the time of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, and probably much further back, a gain in book value was regarded as a profit, even if the venture never received payments. Any other matters, I'd be glad to let drop. MrVoluntarist 03:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

At googling random:

this somewhat disreputable-looking page

The value of a stock (a bond, a firm, real estate, or any asset) is the sum of the income (cash flow) that a reasonable investor would expect to get in the future, discounted at the appropriate rate.

this blog post starts out with the bogus

The value of a stock is the dividend divided by the current interest rate

but continues

If a stock’s dividend is expected to rise, the stock is worth more. If the dividend is expected to fall, the stock is worth less.

which gets fairly close to what I referred to.

[2] has a reference to a certain Williams, though it appears he's only credited with returning to "firm foundations".

Further references: [3] [4] [5] (which argues the way you do, kinda) [6] [7] [8] [9]

The latter two appear to be somewhat academic, but think give some credence to this Williams person :-)

RandomP 04:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I don't think that answers my question. I "get" that they teach about discounting rents for present value and such. The question was, where is the fundamental distinction between investments that draw income while you retain them, and investments you must sell in order to get income. I've just never seen the distinction. For example, say a corporation liquidates its assets and pays out their value to shareholders as dividends, effectively ending the corporation. Would it not be an investment if investors expected this possibility? And if you think it matters that the people who buy the assets would draw rents from them, what if they liquidated the assets to individuals for personal use? (Say the assets were cattle or something.) If your'e then going to count any benefit from personal use as an "imputed income", you've stretched your theory just far enough to cover gold, as people could e.g. wear necklaces. (Plus, there's the point about holding gold paying you an imputed income of the value of an insurance policy that gives you usable money during a crisis such as currency collapse or military occupation.) MrVoluntarist 00:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

And one more thing: I know that last bit may sound harsh, but again, I would be glad to rescind it when you finally tell me in which period the "classical theory" of investment was the predominant one, which I believe was why I was asking about this the first time. MrVoluntarist 03:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Note that the Dividend discount model (and I'm going to keep red-linking that until it turns blue, or I do) doesn't contradict your "rise in book value is a profit" thing. It just states, quite nonchalantly, that obviously the market must have changed its expectations for the time value of future dividends.

The imputed income debate is largely immaterial to gold, though it does become relevant for real estate.

As far as I understand, the model is one taught to undergraduates even today, and largely accepted by them, though it has more problems than I thought at first (in particular, the investor's expectations of the future change in the market's expectations become relevant, though "perfect information" can be bent into something saying those are just going to be the current market's expectations, and don't be silly [edited to note: "don't be silly", of course, is what economists say to mathematicians, like me, who make their life complicated by looking at the non-simplified case. It's not what I'd say to you, or anything]).

RandomP 04:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Okay, from your last comment i get the impression it would be genuinely worthwhile to expand this a bit here.

You ask, if I understand you correctly, what the fundamental difference is between investing into something that (by assumption) never will generate dividends; and something that will. Furthermore, we're talking about an asset that cannot be liquidated (this is, again, an assumption; gold can, strictly speaking): you can sell your gold to someone else, but for purposes of the discussion, that just shifts the problem to someone else. There's no way (again, in the model) for gold to stop existing.

I'm going to be talking about a mathematical model here. I'll make a couple of simplifying assumptions, but I might get around to generalising a bit again, in the end:

• No new gold is mined
• No gold is ever used as anything but a hoarded asset
• No gold ever disappears
• No dividend is paid for gold held as a hoarded asset, but no cost arises, either.
• No transaction costs

I think we can agree on those five assumptions. They're not actually true, but true enough to compare this modelled gold to the real gold out there.

Let me stop you here. Gold does generate dividends -- the imputed value of the crisis insurance you don't have to buy as a result of holding the gold. Plus, whatever use you get out of wearing it as jewelery. We're allowing imputed income, right? Second, selling it does not "shift the problem to someone else"; what allows gold to retain its value is the fact that you can always find a use for it, and *that use* drives its value. i.e., "Worst comes to worst, I can wear it and look cool." "Worst comes to worst, I can decorate my house." "Worst comes to worst, I can sell it to researchers." It is not the pyramid scheme you're trying to imply that it is. Third, gold does get used up; I've personally worked in a research facility that used gold as an input and rendered it in a worthless state. Fourth, the non-dividend nature, even if it existed, makes no economic difference. This is just another opportunity cost imputed out of the current price. If one investment retains its value and draws rents, another that doesn't draw rents will be bid down to capture the forgone opportunity. And fifth, I should add, virtually all existing physical assets used as investments (real estate, factories, etc.) require some upkeep and thus cannot retain their value on top of the rents they draw.

You've based everything you've said so far on multiple, compounded direct contradictions of the exact points I used to dispute the distinction you tried to make. Would I be correct to guess that it doesn't get any better? (And in the future, I know what a mathematical model is.) MrVoluntarist 02:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay. Perfectly fine to stop me here :-)

You've asked me to name one economist who had a similar definition of value to me, and I did. Williams, whatever his first name was.

You promised to rescind some of what you said when I explained to you "in which period the "classical theory" of investment was the predominant one", and I think I've made a fairly good case that that period indeed includes today, but at the very least some of the formative years of the laureate of that prize that isn't technically a Nobel prize I linked to.

I'm going to stop right here, because you've made clear why you're not going to go with the simplifying assumptions. They're not actually true, but they're pretty close to being true - 2% p.a. error on the first one, give or take, much less on the others.

One exception: The insurance thing. That is a real reason always to have some gold in your immediate possession - on your person, or at home, or in some place you could always get to. I'd guess 10 to 20 percent of the world's gold are indeed held that way, though mostly in jewellery, mostly with a sense of tradition being involved. But it doesn't have to cover the whole cost imputed out of the current price - quite a few people hold gold that they have never physically seen, that would be impossible for them to wear or use to decorate their houses, that they could not get to in a crisis. I would go as far as to say that's the typical Western gold investor. For those investors, the assumptions above aren't a problem.

People buy gold today as an object of pure speculation; there is a widespread campaign to convince them that it is a "safe investment" to do so, but it is neither. It's a bet. It looks (or looked, at times) like a bet with a good chance of making good returns, which means that the brokers think there's a not-vanishingly-small chance of losing the pot.

RandomP 02:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I was hoping to learn about some kind of interesting theorist. Williams did not meet my above criteria, for the above reasons. If you can't find an example that meets the above criteria, then my search for more knowledge on this topic is fruitless and I'll be glad to let the matter drop. MrVoluntarist 03:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

MS Encarta sources for anarchism

Hello there. You might do well to read more thoroughly the US and UK Encarta sources that I have supplied for my edits. Both establish that anarchism has roots in 19th century socialism. The US article even claims that, today, anarchism is "basically anticapitalist." I don't think that you're giving them a fair or unbiased reading.

That said, I'd greatly appreciate it if you stopped deleting or reverting my sourced edits. --AaronS 00:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Search all three pages of the article for "capitalist" or "capitalism". There are three instances: anarchism's rise during the rise of large-scale industrial capitalism; Proudhon describing an alternative to capitalism, and the mention of A/C. That doesn't support what you claimed in that sentence. Please read your sources, like I said in the edit note. Recall that this isn't a new thing for you. In the past, you claimed that an article critical of anarchism (and this was clear from the title) was by an anarcho-capitalist. And you claimed to be acting in good faith! MrVoluntarist 00:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I already apologized for that mistake several times. Everybody makes mistakes - except for, perhaps, you. Now, regarding those articles, perhaps you should take your own advice and read it, instead of pressing [CTRL]+[F]. For the claim "has also traditionally and popularly been described as anti-capitalist," we have, in the UK article: "anarchism, as a self-conscious ideology, appeared in Europe during the first half of the 19th century, the uneasy sibling of modern socialism and communism" (here is a definition of sibling for you); "freedom was based on political, economic, and social equality"; and "It was through the First International that Bakunin and others promoted a movement of socialists." From the US article: "grew out of the socialist movement and appeared toward the end of the 19th century." For the claim "is to this day," we have, from the US article: "Since that time socialism and anarchism have diverged sharply, although both are basically anticapitalist." I don't really think that it's open to interpretation. Thank you kindly for ceasing to revert my sourced edits. :) --AaronS 04:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, someone never learned to copy the source rather than the outpute. Not sure where to find that dictionary def. of "sibling", not that it matters. Take the rest to the anarchism page. And by the way, I'll stop bringing up your past bad faith when you admit it was bad faith, rather then trying to sell the quite obvious lie that it was an honest mistake. Yeah, you honestly believed you had read an article despite not finishing the title. MrVoluntarist 13:30, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I had copied that from the anarchism article discussion page, and forgot to include the URL. You can easily find it on that page. I did not act in bad faith in the past; I merely made a rash assumption. I apologized for it immediately. If that can't satisfy you, then nothing will. --AaronS 19:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

You claimed to have read it. You had not finished reading the title!! If that's not bad faith, nothing is. Please grow up and admit the obvious. MrVoluntarist 19:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and about the copying -- I know were to get the info. I was just pointing out your sloppiness. Kinda comes with the territory I guess. "Haven't read the title of the essay" equates to "I read the whole essay" in your mind. MrVoluntarist 20:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I actually skimmed through it. But if it makes you feel better to insult me, go ahead. I don't really care. --AaronS 21:46, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. You skimmed through it, and somehow missed the title, and hoped I wouldn't notice. MrVoluntarist 04:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

RFM

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Talk:Objectivism (Ayn Rand), and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

I think this is the better method than contacting me. I'm completely unfamiliar with the article at hand, and yes, the chap is being incivil, but if I can see that from 20 seconds of reading, I'm sure an RfC/RfM/RfAr will see that quickly as well. I'm not willing to jump right in to an argument I'm unfamiliar with. However, if things escalate, let me know. --Golbez 04:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I have read both "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountian Head" if I can be of any help?

Carbonate 09:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

re: positional goods

I don't have a reference to Fred Hirsch's book, but this summary of it gives both "lonely beaches" and "high status jobs" as examples of positional goods. Clearly beaches are land in the economic sense - they're not defined in terms of social ranking, but they're still in fixed supply. The article also predicts that high status jobs will earn an increasing "price" (really, an in-kind scarcity rent) as a result of competition, which is the same conclusion that Henry George drew about land.

Gold as an Investment

Hello Mr. V and let me thank you for your defence of reason when posting agaisnt RandomP. I am letting you know that I have picked up the torch so to speak and am trying to have redressed some of the nonsense that was effected on that page. You should take a look at the discussion page as the debate has heated up quite a bit.

Hey, glad to be appreciated. As you can see above, it turns out that after calling him to the carpet, he really had nothing to say. That was sad because I thought there was something behind he statements about some "classical theory of investment", but it was really just a facade. Not only that, a facade he tried to cover by citing his superior knowledge of math and physics. Something he's not too modest about, by the way. How long until he forgets going through all that? MrVoluntarist 16:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Inflation

I would like your opinion on the proposed changes for the Gold as a measure of inflation section of the inflation article currently up for RfC in talk:inflation Carbonate 15:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I've posted there, but in that specific section, I don't see what the big controversy is about. MrVoluntarist 16:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Can you please stop misquoting me?

As far as I'm aware, I never said hyperinflation was "not harmful". I said it's "not that harmful" (compared to, say, the liquidity trap in japan, or the great depression in the US, which some claim were both caused by deflationist policies). There's a difference between saying smoking a cigarette won't kill you and claiming smoking is harmless ...

Compared to that, having to use new money once in a while just doesn't seem to be that much of a problem, and macroeconomically, that's it as far as damage from hyperinflation goes. After the hyperinflation, the economy's still there. The factories are still there. Some people have lost wealth, some people have gained (relative) wealth, (the government effectively ended up defaulting on its debt), but in the overall scheme of things, not much has changed. It's not the end of the world, and why people who held real estate or company stock or more trustworthy debt will look smug for a couple of years, it'll be the other group's turn soon enough.

RandomP 17:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I'll stop misquoting you, as soon as you start reading what I post. Deal? (That means, no more, "What did I say about MrsVoluntarist?" No more, "hey, just google and you can find people explaining how to discount future income for time value.")

And for this last line of reasoning, why hyperinflation "isn't that harmful", ... what? So, if every ten years, all wealth were expropriated and given to revolutionaries, would you also consider that "not that harmful" on the "grounds" that "the factories are still there, some people have lost and gained wealth"? Or would you wise up and realize the long term harms from such instability and disincentives to long-term planning? Take another good look at the picture of the woman using money as fire fuel. MrVoluntarist 17:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Look, uhm, I'm still not sure why you keep bringing up your wife. If you think I said anything about her, please give me a link.

I'm not here to educate you. You're not here to educate me. All I'm asking for is that if you feel mocking my opinions on an article's discussion page is a good use of your time, you don't misquote me there.

RandomP 17:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you not remember the argument I made along these lines: "If owning a home gives me imputed income from not having to pay rent, does getting married give me imputed income from not having to hire prostitutes (or sperm banks, or surrogate mothers, or nannies)?" And yes, I am here to educate you as long as you keep trivializing the harm from hyperinflation, or misusing the term "classical" (while trying to intimidating me by flashing pieces of your math and physics knowledge), or claiming there's an authoritative source that says anything you have to sell to see a return on isn't an investment, or claiming people buy stocks for the dividends, etc. etc. etc. I'm glad you're finally learning the frustration I get when dealing with you, at least. MrVoluntarist 17:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I do not remember making such an argument. If I did, it's in the history: just dig it out and show it to me.

Stocks are, today, commonly valued by the dividend discount model. It's used as a fact, without much discussion, in undergrad economics classes. The idea of a company stock that never pays any dividend, existing only as something that would forever increase in value, actually made a friend laugh when I proposed it, because it's so obvious no one would buy it. I don't think I've claimed more than that, though I am, personally, wondering why that sort of reasoning isn't applied to gold.

You don't have to deal with me. All you have to deal with is my edits. There's a dispute resolution process specifically designed to reduce direct communication in some of its stages ...

RandomP 17:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. Yes, I know people discount future income streams. However, many, many, many corporations have never paid dividends over their entire lifetime. They appreciated in value, and then the corporation was sold to another one, and investors got paid for their shares. Yes, I know you're going to forget everything you've ever said and then come up with an ad hoc "But then those payments are dividends!!!!!!!!" Call them what you want. To get those payments, they had to lose those shares. This contradicts your "it's not an investment unless you receive an income while still holding the asset". And then, what about inventory profits, or any other asset that won't be used to produce other goods? Say they buy, hell I don't know, jewelery, and before they can sell it, BAM, gold shoots up in price, and BAM that drags up the value of the jewelery, and BAM that pumps up their book value. Even though it's a consumer item rather than a capital good. Is that gain in value not "investment income"?

Gold has value because it carries the opportunity to put it use. As long as you hold it, you have the *opportunity* to use it in some industrial process or whatnot. It is not a hot potato like Federal Reserve Notes are.

See below on marriage. MrVoluntarist 17:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Marriage as an investment

I said this on the talk: gold as an investment page: "And again, if you are *only* going to allow payments to count as a return, most stocks and some real estate are not investment. Are you familiar with the stock market? Like I said before, most of the return from buying stocks is due to appreciation or accumulation of the corporation's assets. The stock stakes a claim to more valuable things. If you ignore the value of the stock itself and just count dividends, the overwhelming majorit of stock investing is at an extreme loss. And again (I offered to give you citations last time) at least as many people dispute the "imputed income" doctrine as cling to the "classical theory" of investment you gave. If you don't understand why, think about this: Is marriage an investment in the sense you're using it? After all, I get imputed income from sleeping with MrsVoluntarist, since I don't have to hire prostitutes. I also get the imputed income of her services as surrogate mother and nanny. MrVoluntarist 00:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC) " Search for the relevant words; I made many responses over that change. MrVoluntarist 17:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Er, so you agree I did not say anything about marriage being an investment, for whatever reason?

Imputation is something done to account for economic benefits that are not directly measurable. While some people argue that all benefits are economic in nature, I don't.

RandomP 18:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I "agree" that you conveniently "forgot" the reason I gave why the "imputed income" doctrine is not universally accepted, and that you then piled on the phoney indignation about how you didn't say nuttin bout my wife.

If you think that economists don't try to quantify the benefit of being married, or having eyesight, or being able to read ... there's not much I can say, other than that you're wrong. Your distinction between "imputed income from owning a home" and "imputed income from being married" is arbitrary until you give a reason to distinguish. Your trick was to say "aha! That's sexual. So it's irrelevant." Not good enough. MrVoluntarist 18:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Look, if it's "economists" in general you have an issue with, I can't help you. I know that I, personally, draw a distinction between economic and non-economic benefits, and use imputation for one but not the other; from what I remember, that's also what the people who calculated the US GDP did (they used imputation for rents, and imputed charges incurred by a bank you have an account with, and that was it, IIRC)

RandomP 18:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I was pointing out to the extent that economists use "imputed income" concepts, they don't limit themselves to homes. They certainly don't rule out everything sexual. I really don't care what you "personally" draw a distinction between. Pretty much everything you've argued is your "personal" opinion, and that's exactly why it doesn't belong in the article. One time, though, you were clever enough to call that opinion the "classical theory", and further try to scare me off from questioning such a use with the "it's a math/physics thing, you wouldn't understand" trick. Just remember, fringe theories don't belong. flat earth problem and all. MrVoluntarist 18:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a simple thing you could try: reread what I say, but don't assume I'm evil. In fact, you could go as far as assuming good faith.

I never said "it's a maths/physics thing, you wouldn't understand". I said I used "classical" in a jargon meaning (that, as it happens, mathematicians and physicists use, too), not its proper meaning, and I apologised for that. RandomP 18:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Line by line response due to multiplicity of issues.

No, mathematicians and physicists do not use it in that sense; this was established above in the (latest) discussion you just "forgot". And I never claimed that was an exact quote ("it's a math/physics thing ..."). That was merely the label I gave for what you were attempting. I am still greatly offended by your attempt to intimidate me by invoking topics you (falsely) believed I wasn't familiar with, in order to hide your errors. MrVoluntarist 18:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

As you now seem to admit, I never said anything about imputation other than for imputed rents for real estate. RandomP 18:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Random. If only we could limit the principles we invoke in arguments so that people aren't allowed follow them to conclusions we deem to be ridiculous. Unfortunately, it doesn't quite work that way. If you invoke principle X, and I show how it leads to something you disagree with, I have refuted the argument based on that principle. You have to choose a different one. It will simply not suffice to say, "I invoke principle X, except where I disagree with its conclusions."

One time I was in a dispute that went something like this. "You shouldn't shoot trespassers because that's violent." "Fighting in a defensive war is violent too, are you against that?" "I'm not talking about being a soldier, I'm talking about shooting trespassers." "Yes, and the principle you justified it with also implies no one should be a soldier." "But I'm not talking about soldiers, I'm talking about shooting trespassers." See the problem? What you're doing isn't far removed. "I'm not talking about sex, I'm talking about paying rent." MrVoluntarist 18:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Could you please take back this:

"I don't understand your prostitution reference either, in light of how you seem to think that marrying MrsVoluntarist gives me imputed income from not having to hire prostitutes, and should thus be considered an investment."

I never said it. I don't think it. I'm not sure what makes you think I think it.

Thanks!

RandomP 18:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I explained above that it's an implication of your belief in the imputed income doctrine. That's "what makes me think you think it". Get it? MrVoluntarist 18:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit note

Wow, you were able to figure out that I was quoting myself. I guess the "I said this on the talk: gold as an investment page" tipped you off, eh? Maybe this time you remembered why I was doing it? Nah, that would make it too easy to show you your errors. MrVoluntarist 18:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

---

I'm not going to comment further on this. I see nothing that still pertains to the Wikipedia project in your comments. I also don't understand what makes you claim things like

No, mathematicians and physicists do not use it in that sense; this was established above in the (latest) discussion you just "forgot".

when that's just not true: I explained, in the previous discussion, which is still on this very page, how the term is used. While you disagreed, that does not mean anything was "established" by that discussion. RandomP 19:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

You explained how you thought it was used, and then in an example, you directly contradicted that. Yeah, I know you can ignore your previous contradictions. But don't pretend like you've justified anything you've said or explained your way out of any deception I have alleged. MrVoluntarist 19:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I did not want to intimidate you, I'm just frankly too puzzled to continue the argument here. RandomP 19:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Then in the future, don't flaunt your knowledge of other topics. Please, don't kid yourself -- it was gratuitous. Your invocation of your math/physics knowledge was unnecessary, and could be interpreted as nothing other than a bluff. MrVoluntarist 19:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that my statement "I use imputation for economic activity, such as rents, but not for non-economic activity, such as (non-prostitution) sex" falls into the same category as "you shouldn't shoot trespassers, but serving in a defensive army is okay"; I agree: both are commonly-held opinions that are perfectly consistent. RandomP 19:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks like I went over your head again. YES I agree that one can consistently hold the positions "Shooting trespassers is morally wrong" and "Serving in a defensive army is not morally wrong." Try reading the full context again: If you are claiming both positions are valid, it does not suffice to only invoke the principle "all violent acts are morally wrong." You would need to invoke a different principle to consistently hold the positions. Get it? What you did was to state X, justify it with principle Y, and then try to disavow logical implications of Y, while still using Y as the justification for X. That's not kosher. MrVoluntarist 19:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to have a last word, but I'll leave it at that. Just for future reference, though: nothing was "established" in this discussion, either, other than I, for one, don't feel it's worth it to continue it.

RandomP 19:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Random, much was established here. You were given every opportunity to defend your "gold isn't real investment" and "it's not an investment unless you can draw an income or imputed income without losing the asset", and you were shown to be in error, and conceded you could not come up with examples to back up what said. Not unwilling; couldn't. I will link back to this each and every time you attempt to argue such a position, anywhere. MrVoluntarist 19:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I did not concede that, just for the record. I did not concede anything. MrVoluntarist has not convinced me in a single aspect on this talk page. The discussion was a total failure. No new consensus was reached. Can I make it any clearer?

RandomP 19:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Random, everyone who sees this page will see that you could not back up a single thing you said. You're right that you can endlessly deny the obvious. Of course. This page will then have to suffice as evidence of your bad faith, and previous failures to justify what you may try to argue again in the future. MrVoluntarist 19:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Alienus

"I thought we were supposed to go straight to admins about this abuse." Yes, and you should post to WP:ANI rather than singling out a particular admin whom you think will be sympathetic. It's not that I don't care, it's that it's an issue that I alone don't have the time or energy to get in to. More eyes is better than fewer eyes. At worst, you might want to bring out an RfArb, but those like to see an RfC and/or RfM done first. --Golbez 19:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for accusing you of fishing, though I am extremely libertarian, but I don't advertise it. As for "only uninvolved admin", there are 900 here. How did you find me? Anyway, hope things work out. It's almost always better to ask the community through ANI or, if you didn't know about that, then the Village Pump, than to appear in an uninvolved admin's talk page asking for help. Personally, I think he's being unhelpful, but I don't think I see any blocking offenses here, which is why I was encouraging you to ask the wider community. --Golbez 20:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Searching?

What can't you find? Have I missed a redirect somewhere? - FrancisTyers · 00:43, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

All the content has been merged into Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism. There is still some redundancy needs working out, but I'll get to that tommorow. - FrancisTyers · 01:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Al

I was numbering his arguments, so I could number my arguments and they would match up. I don't engage in breaking comments up. Crazynas ^t 20:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a great, noble stance. He's still going to be pissed off. (And breaking up comments is still acceptable among mature Wikipedians.) MrVoluntarist 20:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Playstation 3

Good day! Apologies if you disliked my revert, but the headings you added, unfortunately, weren't beneficial to the project; they were actually rather misleading. For example "Near supercomputer-level" is subjective and POV, plus the PS3 doesn't come close to what an actual supercomputer is capable of- you'd need several thousand dollars to begin to afford the lowest level of current supercomputer. The same with the heading about Linux, and backwards compatibility. Someone skimming through the article, just reading the headings would miss the fact that the PS3 is actually not fully backwards compatible; no PS2 or PS1 peripherals, including any previous Memory Cards, are compatible with the system. Cheers! Ex-Nintendo Employee 19:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Inflation

If the gold as a measure of inflation section goes to arbitration, may I include you in the affair? Carbonate 18:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure. MrVoluntarist 21:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism

Anarcho-capitalism is currently under featured article review. Any help in maintaining featured status would be appreciated. -- Vision Thing -- 21:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

anarcho-capitalism

Hey, don't let the detractors discourage you, I feel like a lot of great editors have already been scared off by the recent insurgance of "true anarchists" attempting to discredit the article and I would hate to see the article run by a regime of detractors. However, I do feel some of their complaints are worth at least considering and investigating, and I'm sure we can come to a consensus which gives an accurate and ecyclopedic account of the theory. We just have to be diligent. Two-Bit Sprite 13:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Anarcha-feminism

Hello there, wiki-comrade! You might want to read and respond to Talk:Anarcha-feminism#Blahblahblahblahblahblah and MrVoluntarist, please stop!, in order to let Blahblahblahblahblahblah's opinions stand unanswered. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 15:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Admin claims

He She made a mistake. His mistook Laszlo for you, and commented on a comment I made to him. Don't even bother to comment on my talk page if all you are going to do is throw "I told you so!" at me for situations you don't even understand. -- LGagnon 22:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

She may have at first. My comment, however, was in reference she made to *your* vs. my comments. It stands. Want the link? MrVoluntarist 23:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:PAIN

As well as recent comments on my talk page from LGagnon, please see my comments at User_talk:LGagnon#WP:Pain. How do you see de-escalation of personal comments back to a focus on content being achieved? How do we provide an environment free of bullying or perceived bullying?

In reference to LGagnon's comment immediately above, while I did indeed pick up a diff of a comment that he claims was directed at another user, my issue is I cannot deal with complaints of lack of civility when all and sundry are being less than civil. Civility and no personal attacks is required from all users.--A Y Arktos\^talk 23:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I just want someone to answer the complaint I raised on the talk: atlas shrugged page in good faith. LGagnon gives me anything but. MrVoluntarist 23:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you addressig me with you cry to mommy, or you can you grow up and try again before I have to resort to that? ? I am going to revert discussions not addressed to me. I get confused. Others reading my talk page might too.--A Y Arktos\^talk 23:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm replying to LGagnon's comments with that statement (and no, you're not the referent of "mommy" there, that's just a phrase). If I want to comment on something LGagnon has said on your page, where should I say it? Or should I not reply to anything he says there? MrVoluntarist 23:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You should reply on his talk page referencing his comment, perhaps with a diff. If you want to reply on my talk page (and having thought about it, I would probably rather you didn't as I don't think it is the right forum), then you should make it clear who you are addressing. I would actually recommend not replying! Or at least allow a little time to pass and ensure you really want to say it. Will your comments help anything?--A Y Arktos\^talk 23:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You asked how to get the complaint you raised at Talk:Atlas Shrugged answered. I suggest taking it to the discussion page of a relevant wikiproject - for example WikiProject Objectivism.

At Talk:Atlas Shrugged#Neutrality of Criticism Section, you state at one stage Give me some links, some cites. Don't just gripe here, that's not productive. It doesn't take a college degree to look this stuff up, let's stop being lazy and do some serious work to improve the article. Instead of all this blather which is too hard to follow because there is too much of it (whose going to find your request amongst it all other than the most patient), just tag contested items with {{fact}}. It refers to the relevant policies, including WP:Cite which states any material that is challenged and has no source may be removed by any editor - ensure time is given to provide sources and then you can remove challenged material, probably documenting you have done so with your reasons on the talk page. For more info on alternatives which might be more relevant see the {{fact}} template page.--A Y Arktos\^talk 00:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion to go to the Objectivism project page. That's a good idea. Note that in the remark you're referring to, in which I said, "Give me some links, some cites. Don't just gripe here, that's not productive. It doesn't take a college degree to look this stuff up, let's stop being lazy and do some serious work to improve the article.", I was mimicking LGagnon's style in responding to me to demonstrate what it was like to be on the receiving end of his browbeating. I don't do this quickly; it was only after several experiences with him that I found no other way to demonstrate the wrongness of what he was doing. As for the fact template, I know about it, but I was referring to a claim made on the talk page, not in the article. MrVoluntarist 02:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

your ANI post

If LGagnon continually reverts against a strong consensus, then he may be blocked for disruption (edit-warring and reverting in a futile position is considered disruption). However, I cannot see a proper consensus atm, so he is free to be bold and switch versions. Or am I missing something? Blnguyen | rant-line 02:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The claim of Objectivism being a philosophy is well-cited. See Objectivism (Ayn Rand). The consensus is almost certain to be against his edit. Once that happens, we will have to reverse everything he's done and continues to do. While he can be bold, we should err against a) removals of people from lists where one would expect to find them (as he's done), and b) inserting the more loaded term "ideology", which he's also done. In any case, it's just really bizarre why this matters so much to him. MrVoluntarist 02:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

From Capitalism

That's great, but this article isn't about your view. MrVoluntarist 13:52, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but neither is it about User:Economizer's view, and I was just demonstrating that there are other valid, verifiable and notable views out there.--Red Deathy 14:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

My point there was that that view is non-standard and non-notable, and not worthy of inclusion without a source. MrVoluntarist 16:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

No personal attacks

Personal attacks: [10], [11]

Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. -- 17:55, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I stand by it. Your insertion of the POV tag without explanation was childish. Removing it was growing up. And inform others when you are sockpuppeting, please. Nothing wrong with sockpuppeting, as long as you announce it. MrVoluntarist 18:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey

Thanks for putting some input, I was getting lonely talking to Improper Bostonion - I really does take a third to settle disputes, so help would be appreciated. My point about encyclopedias was that we should look beyond them to secondary rather than tertiary sources, to see if we can find some evidential basis for settlign the dispute, as I've already shown, I can match the OED against britannica or Websters in a battle of reputable reference sources.

Cheers --Red Deathy 17:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Math

I just wanted to comment on your statement,

"hand-holding through math amounts to cheerleading"

From my perspective of having taught college-level students, I've found many do not know off-hand (or at least need to be reminded) how to figure out how much running an electric appliance costs. Students also trust a statement (or a number) more when they see the work behind it. That's why I've found mathematical comparison of these two light-bulb types seems to be a good, simple example to teach.

I guess I would see "cheerleading" more like making hallow statements like "CLFs Rock!" rather than making dry statements like "And here's how one calculates the cost of electricity..." JabberWok 02:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Your complaint about college students is typical and I sympathize. But Wikipedia is not an engineering class, and it is unprecented here to spell out simple arithmetic like that to show something in a more favorable light. I call anything "cheerleading" which is written in a tone so as to promote it. If CFLs are better in some way, simply spell out the facts that promote this view.

Since you have taught college students about how to make these kinds of comparisons, you will perhaps better understand my major complaint with the CFL (and other environmental) articles. Essentially, it focuses too much on the benefit of the saving energy without comparing the non-monetary, highly-subjective cost of having to deal with with buzzing, soul-sapping light. (Please don't turn this into an "I can read your consciousness better than you can" match.) The fact that CFL users tradeoff pleasure for energy savings is simply a microcosm of the tradeoffs we make every day. This attempt to rub the light-to-energy-use efficiency benefit in the user's face indirectly promotes the POV that "Hey, it doesn't matter which unnecessary energy-intensive task you do, as long as the energy you use in it is wasted efficiently!" In doing so it assumes away a more complicated problem.

Perhaps that better clarifies the angle I'm coming from. MrVoluntarist 18:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Your personal opinion on the spectrum of light bulbs is irrelevant.

But it would be great if you wrote a section (if it does not already exist) on the spectrum of fluorescent lamps and their physiological effects on people (with references). That would really help improve the article!

In addition, such facts would be as relevant to the article as how to actually calculate electricity costs. JabberWok 04:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't claiming that my "opinion on the spectrum of light bulbs" is relevant. I was claiming that a cost comparison should compare all costs, rather than saying "this light bulb will save you $X per year". (The example I gave before on the talk page was, should Wikipedia be allowed to say, "Switching to a gruel diet will save the average US household $5000 per year." ? That's exactly what the CFL article currently tries to do.)

There already is a well-referenced Wikipedia article on light quality, and on arithmetic, and on electricity distribution. Spelling out a calculation amounts to cheerleading. It is factual to say "CFLs use x% less energy". It is POV cheerleading to add that, "Oh, and by the way, if you happen to live in the US by any chance and can only think in terms of dollars, that means a savings of $50/bulb." MrVoluntarist 13:31, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I was only suggesting a way for you to improve the quality of the article. If you feel strongly about the "soul-sapping" power of fluorescent compared to incandescent lighting, then you should write a section which collects references and information on the psychological effects of it. JabberWok 21:02, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

And I was only pointing out that Wikipedia has the relevant information already collected and should only present facts rather than try to ill-foundedly persuade readers to switch. MrVoluntarist 21:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Where is the "well-referenced Wikipedia article on light quality" you mentioned? JabberWok 16:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)