User talk:70.161.18.166

October 2021
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages (including user talk pages) are for discussion related to improving (a) an encyclopedia article in specific ways based on reliable sources or (b) project policies and guidelines. They are not for general discussion about the article topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you.  Acroterion   (talk)   12:40, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I understand the desire to have articles based on reliable sources. Unfortunately, I have been unsuccessful at locating any reliable sources on the subject, because the entire reserve study industry appears to be trained and certified by an organization that appears to be a self-appointed reliable source. When I contacted that organization about the problems I found in the methods used, I was sent an example intended to show my error that clearly showed that the person responding does not understand the mathematics of inflation or the limitations of cash flow. That's why, instead of referring to qualified references, I try to explain how to figure out that actual reserve study recommendations are not giving condominium associations what they need. I have performed a cash flow reserve study pretending recommendations were followed exactly, performed multiple studies for subsequent years using the results from previous studies that were followed exactly, and quickly found that they don't fairly distribute costs and don't prevent special assessments, even for a single component reserve study.

The problem with reliable sources is that they are not so easy to identify, and that credentials are not a valid measure of reliability. When I approached the Virginia state government about problems with their recommendations of how a reserve study may compute "percent funded", including examples showing the severe inaccuracy of their recommended method, I was told that their recommendation would not be reexamined because it was developed with the assistance of qualified Reserve Specialists. I believe the terms is "the fox guarding the chickens".

Ask a reliable source on the subject of economics why economics calls itself a "social science that studies the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services". Science requires the application of reason/logic to consistent, accurate, appropriate data based on observation and measurement, in order to attempt to disprove scientific hypotheses. The field of economics has (understandably) yet to define a valid, consistent unit-of-measure of the value of "production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services" (a dollar is a symbol of value, therefore measuring value in dollars is measuring it in terms of a symbol of itself). Furthermore, real economies don't consist only of "production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services", but also theft (including inflation), waste, and "incidental or unforeseeable costs" (e.g., effects of climate change, environmental pollution) are not accounted for. You might also ask them why inflation is called inflation when it doesn't increase costs, it decreases the symbolic value of currency. There are others...

Humans often avoid facts by attacking the qualifications of whoever states them. Perhaps if they don't have anyone to attack the qualifications of, they'll check for themselves. People shouldn't believe something is wrong with reserve studies because of someone's qualifications. They can prove it to themselves by wondering why converting reserve study recommended assessments to constant dollars proves that the assessments are inherently unfair; but no-one in the entire reserve study industry appears to have done so. I understand algebra, inflation, facilities maintenance and construction, I just had to learn the purpose of a reserve study and what cash flow analysis is, to figure out that the cash flow method of calculating reserve assessments violates the laws of mathematics in its treatment of inflation, and that cash flow does not concern itself with fair distribution of costs.


 * That's all interesting, but we require reliable sources. See WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOR. Otherwise, this user-generated encyclopedia would be overwhelmed with the individual opinions of those who edit it.  Acroterion   (talk)   16:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

December 2021
Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Reserve study, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 11:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I'd love to provide a citation to a reliable source, but if mathematical proof isn't considered a reliable source, none exists. All the information on the subject is from a source that can be shown in several ways to not meet the unique budgeting requirements of a common interest community (CIC). Mathematical analysis of the described process and its results show that reserve study calculations of recommended annual assessments is a deception initiated sometime in the late 1980s and expanded on since then. The 2019 study I checked changed the method from 2014 without explaining the changes, but it was still obvious that the tables and graphs on which the results are supposedly based are not mathematically or logically related to the results. For practical purposes, the reserve specialist appears to be deciding what answer he/she believes the customer will accept and creating numbers that give the desired results starting from an improperly calculated, too low beginning assessment. That the deception has never been exposed, may be because the customers, and the reserve specialists taught the methods, either are too lazy, too naive, or incompetent to check them; or don't understand inflation well enough to understand that inflation rates being used are incorrect and that recommended assessments that inflate faster than the used inflation rate cannot even theoretically fairly distribute assessments. The methods of the past 20+ years effectively postpone the effects of inflation so that current owners are assessed less than their share of future project costs at the expense of future owners, and theoretical increase the probability of special assessments. My objection to the article is that the implication that a study's recommended assessments provide budget information appropriate to a CIC, can be mathematically shown to be false, and that CICs that religiously fund their reserves according to recommendations can still require special assessments. 70.161.18.166 (talk) 17:56, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

November 2022
Hello, 70.161.18.166. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the request edit template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Conflict of interest);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Spam);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. ''I know you don't have a COI but I'd like you to see the relevant guidelines for responding to COI. Plus reservestudy is a WP:PRIMARY source anyways.'' Aaron Liu (talk) 14:18, 19 November 2022 (UTC)