User talk:Wikiant

• Please do not remove
  Danny Lilithborne 22:52, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Please do not remove warnings from your talk page or replace them with offensive content. Removing or maliciously altering warnings from your talk page will not remove them from the page history. If you continue to remove or vandalize warnings from your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. Thanks.
    Danny Lilithborne 00:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Please note that there is a Mediation conversation at Talk:J.D. in regards to WP:MedCab. --Jon Cates 01:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried, several months ago, to explain why I believe that these graphs are original research. When no agreement was reached I deliberately took time off from the dialogue to calm down and gain perspective. I then came back and proposed a compromise: that the tag "original research?" be applied to the graphs to raise awareness and encourage further dialogue. Wikiant undid that edit, and then I undid wikiant's. realizing that an edit war with perpetual disagreement could easily result, I am taking Wikiant's advice and seeking arbitration.

Burkander 20:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I added the Holly Sklar et al. book into the Minimum wage book because it seemed relevant.

Sklar, Holly; Mykyta, Laryssa; Wefald, Susan, "Raise The Floor: Wages and Policies That Work For All Of Us", 2002, South End Press.

You took it out as "spam" ? Perhaps I should not have had an external link to the publisher's site which was merely informational. I do think the Sklar book, although not academicially rigorous, is relevant to that article. Best Wishes. -- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 18:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response and well-taken points. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 19:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just put the following at Talk:Minimum wage:-

Isn't it sufficient that the Kim Swales's page links to his work, with the faxfn site cited there referencing papers submitted to the EC? And how is it "ego-spam", when I went to some trouble not to cite my own work but rather his? This is not the first time I have tried to mention his work on this page, so I am afraid that unless I see a positive reason - not a "looks like" - I am going to have to counter with "repeated removals without a positive reason 'looks like' vandalism". If you want a citation, follow the link to his page and then to his sources and put in one that satisfies you - don't simply delete. To my mind, putting Kim Swales was a sufficient citation; if you want more, go and get it.

I see from the other comments here that you have a tendency to use the "ready, fire, aim" approach. May I suggest you check some of these things for yourself, before I start editing again? In a few days I'll put suggested wordings on Talk:Minimum wage so you can sniff the dog's behind before you jump in. P.M.Lawrence 203.221.28.105 (talk) 07:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:Verifiability policy states, "All material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable, published source." As you are the one adding the Swale's passage, the onus for providing the reference is on you, not me. Wikiant (talk) 14:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But how isn't "Kim Swales" a sufficient reference? I will shortly put a suggested wording on Talk:Minimum wage, and invite comments. P.M.Lawrence 203.220.83.29 (talk) 11:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Kim Swales" isn't a reference -- it's the name of the author. A reference cites a reliable printed source. In this case, I'd expect a journal article (journal name, article title, date of publication, etc.) Wikiant (talk) 11:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course "Kim Swales" isn't a reference, but I didn't write that, I wrote "Kim Swales", giving a link. And why isn't that sufficient, when that's just precisely how many other things in wikipedia get links and references? Would you be happy if the new material linked directly to the same stuff that is linked on the Kim Swales page? If not, why not, and if so, doesn't that just increase the clutter and the difficulty of maintenance when that gets moved around, as everything is sooner or later? P.M.Lawrence 203.220.42.115 (talk) 05:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, what you provided isn't a reference. A reference (in this case) would like this: "Friedman, M., 1942. The inflationary gap. American Economic Review 32(2), 314-320." The reference lists the journal, article, volume, and page numbers for the research paper that contains the information you are citing in the wikipedia article. Wikiant (talk) 11:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have repeatedly asked what is insufficient about what I put, and you have repeatedly failed and refused to answer that question, instead repeating your insistence on a citation in a particular form and describing the form you insist on. Yet the wikipedia guidelines themselves allow flexibility. Since Kim Swales did not put these things in a journal but in a report to the EC, this appears to be precisely the sort of case where the flexibility is appropriate - your sort of citation does not exist, even though the work is sound and can be consulted (via the link I provided). Since Kim Swales took the trouble to canvass these things while he was working on them, an internet archive exists and is available via his wikipedia page. So, again I ask not what you call a citation but what you find inadequate about what I provided. If you do not answer the question, I shall put a draft on Talk:Minimum wage, and after it evolves move it to Minimum wage. If you alter or delete either of those stages in the sort of unconstructive way you have done before, I shall submit it for arbitration as being tantamount to vandalism, drawing the arbitrator's particular attention to your track record and high handedness in the past in relation to other people's efforts. P.M.Lawrence 203.221.31.124 (talk) 03:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:Verifiability policy says, "In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses..." and, "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science." Kim Swales has authored a number of peer-reviewed articles, but the report to the EC is not one of them. If you want your edit to stick, find where in Swales' peer-reviewed articles his tax policy theory appears and quote that. (Also, please stop duplicating this discussion on my talk page. It is sufficient that the discussion appears on the minimum wage talk page.) Wikiant (talk) 12:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would normally be "sufficient that the discussion appears on the minimum wage talk page". However, that would make your behaviour appear to be an isolated incident. It is necessary to log this here as well so that it will appear alongside descriptions of your similar behaviour on other occasions. That is the only way future editors and arbitrators can see the pattern. I remind you that an EC report is a source. You are giving away the narrowness of your criteria, despite the greater flexibility the standard policy allows. P.M.Lawrence 203.194.51.184 (talk) 02:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We appear to be talking past each other as I am hearing you repeat the same argument which I believe I have adequately addressed multiple times. So, let's try a different approach. Let's put aside for the moment the question of whether or not the EC report constitutes a "reliable resource." Give us a link to the specific report that you are citing as support for the Kim Swales work. Wikiant (talk) 12:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is mainly to log matters here so other users can follow how disagreements with you progress. I shall be requesting arbitration over your deletion of the description of the Kim Swales work, unless we can sort something else out first, particularly since you have also removed my disagreement at Wikipedia:Third_opinion, which was different to yours. Suppose the main material went into Kim Swales; what would you feel an adequate entry would be under this subtopic? What I am after is enough coverage that people know about that part of his work just from going there. Something like "See also Kim Swales" wouldn't achieve that. Please, I am asking for assistance, not "don't do it". I also want finality, not a delay long enough to lead me to suppose it was OK, followed by yet another objection. P.M.Lawrence 203.220.53.20 (talk) 00:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Putting the material under

Minimum Wage as it appears to represent a minority opinion with respect to the topic of minimum wage. Again, the same material appearing under Kim Swales is fine because it does not represent a minority opinion with respect to Kim Swales. Wikiant (talk) 03:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

That was where I was headed in the first place, before you deleted what I put under minimum wage the first time around; I just hadn't got around to putting any detail under Kim Swales yet, and you seemed to want everything under minimum wage (you were clear about "don't" but never clarified what you would accept). However, the point remains that this material is indeed an alternative to minimum wage - indeed, it comes much closer to a minimum wage than negative income tax or earned income tax credit do, since it actually aims to deliver a minimum wage - and so a coherent mention does belong under that subtopic and under the similar entries in the related articles. The third opinion is definitely wrong about whether it should be there at all, or else the entire subtopic should never have been there. So, what would you accept? Remember, an encyclopaedia has to help people find stuff, so even if a lot of detail ends up at Kim Swales there has to be some meat at minimum wage and the other places. As for whether it is a "minority opinion" - no, you have misunderstood. There is an opinion that there should be policy carrying out the technique. That is a minority opinion about policy. However, the material describes the technique. The technique is not opinion at all, it describes what the modelling shows what would happen under such and such a tax regime. I am not putting together an article edit saying "this should be done" - opinion - but material describing the research work in this area carried out by Kim Swales. It appears in a submission to to the EC, but that does not stop it being research work. P.M.Lawrence 203.221.30.175 (talk) 02:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the technique is a viable alternative to minimum wage is irrelevant. Within the body of minimum wage research, the technique appears to represent a minority viewpoint because the technique is not described anywhere among the thousands of peer-reviewed research articles on the minimum wage. Thus, it is not appropriate for the technique to be referenced on minimum wage but it is appropriate for the technique to be referenced on Kim Swales. Wikiant (talk) 05:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notice you were changing the subject? I answered your objection about whether it was an opinion or not, and you switched to objecting that its viability was irrelevant. So it is, although that is not what you objected to just before and I have never for one moment claimed that in support of it going in, let alone just there above (in other words, it is a straw man). What is relevant is that it is an alternative, and that is just precisely what that subtopic is for. Since it is not a minimum wage thing as such, naturally it won't appear among the articles you want it to be in. You might as well insist that an article on physics appear in a chemistry journal. I would certainly not have considered putting it in minimum wage if someone else hadn't already put in a subtopic about alternatives - and something has to go there, or people will never find their way to the material. Quite simply, it will be worse at the job of an encyclopaedia. You didn't address that side of things at all. Again, I ask you to suggest what sort of wording you would accept; I have in mind going back to something like the original, since the detail is now at Kim Swales. P.M.Lawrence 203.94.135.38 (talk) 06:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brainwashing the poor into believing that they are wealthy is also an alternative. The question is: Has the proposed alternative appeared in a peer-reviewed journal. If not, then the alternative (IMO and the third-party negotiator's) represents a minority opinion and does not belong in the minimum wage article. Wikiant (talk) 12:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we are again talking past each other again. Of course there is a minority opinion - but about the policy, not the technique. I have no intention of covering anything but the technique, and I am asking you for suggestions about how to do that, i.e. how to put in something that refers to the technique and lets people find the detail - the job of an encyclopaedia. From my reading of the third-party negotiator's comment, he or she was against it being in the article as it was an alternative and/or that using subsidies this way is not mainstream (but conceded being an amateur), and did not object that this material itself was a minority opinion, just that this use of subsidies in general was. But that objection falls, because there is a subtopic about alternatives and because

Pigovian subsidies have actually been mainstream since the 1920s (they fell out of fashion with Ronald Coase's work but are now being revived by the likes of the Pigou Club). Furthermore, a peer-reviewed journal article is a sufficient but not a necessary condition for the technique not to be a minority opinion. We can see that it is a matter of fact and not of opinion from two things, that research has been done and - in something like ten years - nothing has come up to rebut let alone refute it. Please make suggestions about how to move forward. P.M.Lawrence 203.221.30.201 (talk) 02:37, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

This discussion belongs on the minimum wage talk page, not here. Please stop posting page-specific comments here, it discourages other interested editors from weighing in. Wikiant (talk) 13:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have stated why it is important to log progress here as well - so that people can see your track record in regard to edits in general, as well as to minimum wage in particular. Furthermore, immediately after I last stated that I was logging things here, you yourself continued the discussion here rather than on the article pages (I mentioned the continuation on those pages precisely so that other editors could find it). If you raise matters here, I will address them here - as I did. P.M.Lawrence 203.194.54.27 (talk) 01:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your removing reference to 博士 in Chinese was a mistake, which you can verify with any dictionary. Zoticogrillo (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop leaving article discussion comments on my talk page. Put the comments on the article's discussion page. Wikiant (talk) 21:40, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wikiant. Just a little nitpick on your (otherwise excellent) response regarding the burden of tax. You said:

...when the government imposes a tax on luxury goods, producers prefer to pay the tax via reduced profits rather than to pass the tax on to consumers via higher prices.

I could be missing something but "prefer" implies they have a choice, doesn't it? I would argue that they don't have a choice because going out of business isn't really an option. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 00:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Going out of business is an extreme case, but you have the spirit of the argument right -- the choice isn't much of a choice. Wikiant (talk) 01:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The box to the right is the newly created userbox for all

]

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Juris Doctor . For the Mediation Committee, Ryan Postlethwaite 06:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up that the

The section that was deleted from the Living wage article was unsourced -- unsourced, that is, except for a pretend "research paper" cranked out by an industry front-group run by a shyster named Richard Berman. If you reinsert the deleted material a second time, it can only be inferred that either a) you yourself are a member of Berman's P.R. agency or are otherwise one of his sponsors, etc.; or b) you have no concept of what constitutes a valid source, and therefore, shouldn't be editing here. J.R. Hercules (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Employing Occam's sledge hammer? There is a simpler explanation: (c) the sources are so numerous anyone with a semester's worth of economic training can find one in seconds. I spent a few seconds and found one. The section is reinserted. Wikiant (talk) 23:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for initiating the mediation, and for your very reasonable participation and concessions concerning the issues raised. I hope you have found my contributions to be reasonable and unoffensive. Please forgive my inability to do so in a timely manner. I look forward to further collaboration. Zoticogrillo (talk) 09:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		This award is given in recognition of Wikiant's superb resoultion of a difficult editing debate on Juris Doctor. Zoticogrillo (talk) 09:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And now I get to complain in this same section about your labeling of my good-faith (and well supported by both policy and the discussion in the Talk page) of my recent edit as "vandalism." You're welcome to disagree, of course, but I would like an apology for labeling my edit as vandalism. And, of course, I expect further dialog in the Talk page. --ElKevbo (talk) 20:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to help. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Wikiant, do you have an opinion on removing the "unbalanced" tag from the Minimum wage article? Thanks! Academic38 (talk) 22:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an overwhelming opinion one way or the other, though I admit that I didn't see the need for it in the first place. Wikiant (talk) 22:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The edit you identified as vandalism was a legitimate edit which was discussed in depth on the talk page and which is supported by more than just one or two editors, and you didn't even contribute to the discussion before doing so. Just undo-ing an edit without discussion is objectionable; your actions are clearly outside the wiki policies for editing behavior. And you are VERY knowledgeable of wiki policies. Therefore, I assume that it was merely an oversight on your part. I "undid" your "undo" because you misidentified the edit as vandalism, and did not intend to start an editing war. However, if your edits have little support among contributors on the talk page, you should seriously consider your blocking of other editor's participation in improving/forming the JD article. Zoticogrillo (talk) 03:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Wikiant, could you comment on the minimum wage talk page? The issue at hand is whether it is valid to broadly classify external links as "supporting" or "opposed" to the minimum wage. We can then move to your point about what the appropriate balance is. Thanks. Academic38 (talk) 02:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I removed content from the JD article re Council Statements. I honestly thought that it was part of the footnotes (hence the editing explanation: "commentary not go in footnotes. there are other formats, but I no time for research of wiki policies"). The article isn't important enough for me to ditch my integrity, so I hope that you will give me the benefit of the doubt and contact me in private first if we have another such misunderstanding. I will do the same for you. Zoticogrillo (talk) 23:36, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, and thanks for writing. Wikiant (talk) 20:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit because it is opinion to say "As an example of the problem..." This presupposes that there is a problem. As you see from the research which is being quoted from (the numbers are here), older people retiring will not have paid as much in to Medicare as people who will retire in the future, and the medical costs of the future generation will be higher than that of the past generation. This is not accidental, it is the very design of the system that makes it so. This is partly because of inflation and partly because Medicare was intended to provide benefits for the older generation paid for by the current generation of taxpayers. When social security and Medicare were created there was no safety net income or medical insurance for older people. Seniors are no longer working but they can clock up big medical expenses. So the younger generation in years past decided to provide for their parents and grandparents and pay for it in taxes from earnings during their lifetime. As each successive generation comes along they help to pay the health care and income security costs for the previous generation. When Medicare and Social secuity started, benefits started to be paid out very soon after. Nobody then said "My God, the Medicare trust fund is empty and there are will be huge expenses to care for the future generation that will fall on the younger generation"! That IS THE VERY ESSENCE of Social security and Medicare!!!Hauskalainen (talk) 13:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wikiant! I recently made this change to the

There are good arguments against a fractional reserve system, but I don't believe it is correct to call it a Ponzi scheme. A Ponzi scheme has no theoretical limit -- i.e., one can keep the Ponzi going indefinately provided that there are new investors to pay off the old investors. A fractional reserve system has a theoretical limit -- the money supply cannot exceed the monetary base divided by the reserve requirement ratio. Wikiant (talk) 00:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: I just filed an SPI for the random new people popping up on the page with short edit histories, all fighting for the same edits. The SPI is here.--Lhakthong (talk) 19:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

Hello, Wikiant. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wikiant. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wikiant. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]