User talk:96.237.134.44

Welcome to Wikipedia
--4wajzkd02 (talk) 15:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Warnings
 Note: Always remember to substitute user warning templates. For help on user warnings, see the WikiProject on User Warnings. Older warnings may have been removed, but are still visible in the [ page history]. [Admin: block | [ unblock] / Info: contribs | [ page moves] | [ block log] | [ block list]]

November 2009
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Federal Reserve System. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Three different editors have reverted your addition, disputing that the references provided support the addition. Moreover, WP:BRD requires discussion on Talk:Federal Reserve System to gain WP:CONSENSUS for the addition. The edit(s) are as follows: ,,, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 15:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I inserted well referenced material to the article. It was removed for not being referenced. It was then removed because there was no discussion on the talk page. The material has been on the talk page for a week. I am not the one NOT trying to engage in a discussion.96.237.134.44 (talk) 16:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Read WP:3RR - there's no excuse for edit warring, even if you think you are (and really are) correct in your addition. Also read WP:DEADLINE - there's no deadlines in Wiki, so no response doesn't mean "you're correct". Regardless, I agree that the other editors need to comment (but I reiterate, per WP:BRD, they have a right to revert you again (as do I, but I don't want to make a WP:POINT). Let's get some discussion on the topic, rather than having an argument. But seriously, please do read WP:3RR - edit wars disrupt the work here. Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 17:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Is there an excuse for deleting well referenced material as not well referenced? As for a discussion, I placed the material on the talk page about a week ago for comment. It is NOT my fault that nobody commented and I see no reason to wait forever for someone to do so.96.237.134.44 (talk) 22:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There are several policies that not only allow, but encourage deletions of article materiel. As I said earlier, having reliable sources are not the only thing that governs what can and should be included in an article. Over times, editors become familiar with these policies, and it is not unusual for a new editor to be frustrated.
 * WP:RS * WP:V. As noted before, some things are reliable sources (academic books & journals, newspapers), while others are not (Youtube, blogs, OpEd pieces, campaign websites). Another thing to consider is the use of Secondary Sources vs. Primary Sources. The former would include use of academic textbooks, the latter would include looking at original documents (like at least some of the ones you've quoted). WP does not use primary sources. This is important, because WP is not written by experts, but relies on the written opinions of reliable experts. So, interpreting the meaning of original sources is not for WP editors to do. I believe the use of Primary sources is one concern with your addition.
 * WP:BRD. When an addition is made that any editors question, perhaps because it is too "Bold" (the B in BRD), it is supposed to be reverted (the R in BRD), then Discussed (the D). It is not supposed to be re-reverted (that's WP:3RR). This is a clear issue for which your actions suggest you do not understand - or you are not listening.
 * WP:UNDUE. Even if something has clear, secondary sources, the information may not be relevant for inclusion because it is a minor point that would be given undue weight if included. (I don't think this is an issue here, but you asked about things that justify deletion.)
 * WP:CONSENSUS. If the consensus of editors is that a change is unwarranted, the change is reverted, and, again, un-reverting the change can lead to sanctions for WP:3RR. This is another issue that justifies deletion of your addition.
 * WP:MOS. There is a manual of style that describes how text should look in an article. Your addition was not written in an encyclopedic style, in my opinion. This was my concern, but I suspect that its poor style contributed to others concerns that it was an inappropriate addition. By the way, it is not my responsibility as an editor to "state how I disagree with your addition, and you'll fix it", as you asserted on the talk page.
 * WP:NPOV - Additions must be made from a neutral point of view. I can't say for sure this is an issue or not with your addition, but your behavior (WP:3RR, plus your comments on the talk page) suggest you have an agenda you are pushing.
 * WP:FRINGE. WP is built on verifiability, not WP:The Truth. Is this an issue with your addition? I lack the knowledge to say for certain, but, reading between the lines, I wonder if this isn't someone's concern.
 * There are more policies that justify reverts of sourced materiel, but I tried to mention the big ones.
 * Finally, it is important in your discussions to assume good faith and not assume that anyone is trying to silence you. They're not. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 23:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Arguable primary material - the minutes of the vote, are used a backup for the material authored by Thomas Jefferson Withers. The conclusion in question is not original research as I am not Thomas Jefferson Withers who died in 1866. 96.237.134.44 (talk) 23:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The constitutionality of Congress passing on a power which was "shorn" from Congress, and which Congress therefore does not have, is not a minor point.


 * "Arguable primary material." Primary source does not mean you wrote the materiel. See the article talk page. The excellent secondary source you cited directly contradicts your position.
 * "The constitutionality of Congress passing on a power which was "shorn" from Congress, and which Congress therefore does not have, is not a minor point." As I said above, regarding WP:UNDUE, "I don't think this is an issue here, but you asked about things that justify deletion".


 * This belief you are espousing does not seem supported by your citations, and is a point of view you're pushing, to the disruption of the encyclopedia. You are welcome to write whatever you like on blogs, etc., but not here.
 * I'm not interested in arguing about your beliefs. I've offered lots of policies and explanations, and so far your responses have been less and less based on an understanding of how things work and more and more on non-mainstream thinking. I am uncertain you'll get a result you are looking for, if you insist that your addition must remain. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not Thomas Jefferson Withers who died in 1866 and I did not author HIS conclusions. neither am I James Madison who recorder the minutes of the vote referenced, and neither am I one of the people that took part in that vote. Your objections seem to center around the fact that I am the originator of this material, which can plainly be seen is not supported by fact. Every single one of the people I am referencing is long dead. Last I checked I am still alive. Something I hope to be able to say for quite a few more years.96.237.134.44 (talk) 23:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL! As I've said, "Primary source does not mean you wrote the materiel". I encourage you to read what I've written, above. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 00:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

You seem confused

The primary material in question is the "minutes of the debate" provided as a supplement to the conclusion reached by Mr. Withers. As to whether Mr. Withers contradicts what I added to the article, I believe that you actually need to read what Mr Withers wrote http://docsouth.unc.edu/imls/witherst/witherst.html Please do not confuse what I wrote with what he wrote, despite the similarities

HE wrote ALL the following - pay special attention to the bold sections

Now, observe, '''according to the "draft" Congress was to be empowered to "coin money" and "emit bills of credit"--i. e., a paper currency, undoubtedly.''' Were they the same or equivalent things, in the contemplation of the convention? If so, why specify both? That body knew how to use the English language, and were not given to tautology. The States were prohibited to make anything but "specie" a legal tender without the consent of Congress. The scheme is manifest that proceeded from the brain of the Committee of Five. It was this: Congress alone should issue a paper currency, and the States should be confined, as to a legal tender, to specie, and that alone, unless Congress should "emit bills of credit;" and in that case, the States might, had Congress authorized it, not that they should, make the Federal "bills of credit" a legal tender. But not even by this scheme, as it came from the committee, was Congress empowered to declare what should be a legal tender in payment of debts.

But soon afterward Congress was shorn of the power to make a paper currency, or to allow a State to use such a currency, made by any authority whatever, as a legal tender. To the proof:

"August 16.--It was moved and seconded to strike the words'and emit bills,' out of the 8th clause of the first section of the 7th article--which passed in the affirmative"--nine states aye--two (New Jersey and Maryland) nay. Thus the clause read (as it now reads in the Constitution of the United States and in our own) " to borrow money on the credit," etc.96.237.134.44 (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Read the WP:OR article. Your material is OR.  Simple as that.  You must source facts AND the conclusions from those facts.  Until you begin to to find even a single viable source, your material will be reverted.  It's that simple.  Wikipedia is not about personal views or essays, it's about information based on secondary sources.  Your material is your conclusions based on primary sources.  That is unacceptable here.  Ravensfire (talk) 17:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Mr. withers is not a primary source as he was born after the Constitution was enacted.96.237.134.44 (talk) 23:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to Federal Reserve System, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ''The problems with your changes have been explained to you several times on the talk page, yet you do not choose to listen to the comments. You hear a few small parts, ignore the main points and continue to see your changes reverted for the same reasons. Please stop adding the material until you are able to get consensus on the talk page.'' Ravensfire (talk) 00:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! While we appreciate that you enjoy using Wikipedia, please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a social network. Wikipedia is not a place to socialize or do things that are not directly related to improving the encyclopedia. Off-topic material may be deleted at any time. This message is not meant to discourage you from editing Wikipedia but rather to remind you that the ultimate goal of this website is to build an encyclopedia. Thank you. ''Please keep your comments focused on how we can improve the article. Please avoid digressions into your pet theories.'' DanielRigal (talk) 15:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.


 * Please explain why the essay on originalism that you're trying to keep on the talk page for Federal Reserve System is related to the Federal Reserve System article. Ravensfire (talk) 16:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * In the previous section I cited a quote from an "excellent source" stating that based on an Originalist interpretation of the US Constitution, the power to print legal tender paper money has been removed from Congress. That is part of the material critical to the Fed that I am attempting to add. I have no objection to the deletion of that section AFTER the discussion is over. The essay on originalism is an attempt to show why a "living breathing interpretation" can lead to any conclusion a judge decides, rendering the original contract null and void. If you want a cite I believe that James Madison stated something to the effect that "the sanctity of contracts is the first principle of a just society". Should I look that quote up for you?. I have to warn you though, it is Originalism and may contaminate you with a love for justice.96.237.134.44 (talk) 17:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Criticism of the Federal Reserve. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. ''You do not have WP:CONSENSUS for the change you continue to make. Please see discussion at Talk:Criticism of the Federal Reserve''. The edits in question are as follows: ,,,,, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 22:54, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Nuvola apps important.svg|48px|left]] More edit warring on this Criticism of the Federal Reserve: . Please discuss on the talk page, assuming good faith as you do. Thank you, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 23:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Talk:Criticism of the Federal Reserve. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Your comment appears to assume bad faith on the editors who are trying to help you : Bringing in supposedly independent outsider who work for you is pretty low on the moral scale - "Thou shalt not bear false witness" made it into the 10 Commandments. Also please remember to sign your posts, like this: "4wajzkd02 (talk) 23:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)". The edit(s) in question are as follows: --4wajzkd02 (talk) 22:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Please stop your harassment - Above that comment you cited is a link to a newspaper article - please read that article for context - I was not slamming a wiki editor- I slamming the federal reserve for bringing in economists to deceive Congress during a recent "audit the Fed" vote. Those economists represented themselves as outsiders when 7 of 8 were current or former Fed employees. It would not surprise me in the least to learn that the 8th also had Fed ties. 96.237.134.44 (talk) 23:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Information.svg|25px]] Please do not use talk pages for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Your have explained that your comment, "Bringing in supposedly independent outsider who work for you is pretty low on the moral scale - "Thou shalt not bear false witness" made it into the 10 Commandments", was "slamming the federal reserve for bringing in economists to deceive Congress". Pardon for misunderstanding but perhaps you'll understand even more why it is important to not use the Talk pages of Wikipedia as a forum - they are for improving articles only. Regardding your charge of harrassment, I and several other editors are trying to help you understand how things work at WP. The only way we have, in addition to welcoming you and providing links to the five pillars of Wikipedia, is to point out where you are not following the guidelines. Good luck. The edit(s) in question are as follows:  --4wajzkd02 (talk) 23:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I was contemplating adding this attempt to deceive Congress about the impact of the "Audit the Fed" Bill introduced by Congressman Ron Paul, in the article "Criticism of the Fed" and wanted to see what other wiki editors thought about it. If believe that an attempt (likely one of many) to deceive Congress is at least worth thinking about for inclusion in that article. Please comment with your thoughts on this issue in that discussion age. 96.237.134.44 (talk) 23:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, that wasn't clear at all. I'll read and offer suggestion(s), if any. You may want to amend your comment on the talk page to note your intent. If you have any ideas of where in the article and what you want to say specifically, that would be helpful, too (not necessary at first, but ultimately needed to get something like that added, in the circumstances. Thank you, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 23:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a section called "transpaency" where Ron Pauls Bill is mentioned "Another objection is the Fed's lack of transparency. Critics claim that it is too secretive; they assert that the public has a right to know exactly what the Fed is doing because it is so powerful, yet it has never been audited. For this reason, Federal Reserve Transparency Act was put forward by congressman Ron Paul in 2009 and currently has over 300 cosponsors.:"


 * 4wajzkd02 gave a fairly concise review of your sources in this post, that's a good place to start. You also need to really, really read the WP:OR and WP:SYN.  Wikipedia doesn't care what you, I, or any other editor comes up with when we analyze something - it only wants information from published sources.  Your essay is exactly OR - you MUST source all claims and conclusions to a secondary sources that meets that standards of Wikipedia.  Ravensfire (talk) 04:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * ONE MORE TIME: Of my addition - What exactly is OR and what exactly is SYN - The criticisms of the Fed article specifically state that many believe it is unconstitutional - an "excellent source" states that by an ORIGINALIST interpretation of the Constitution the Legal Tender Cases were WRONGLY decided. Lastly - If you look at a Federal Reserve note from before 1932 you will find it does not have the words "LEGAL TENDER" on it. Asside from the civil war greenbacks - NO US paper currency was legal tender prior to the Great Depression.96.237.134.44 (talk) 04:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Your IP address host name pool-96-237-134-44.bstnma.east.verizon.net, located in Quincy, Massachusetts, does not appear to be shared. You can create an account for yourself if you prefer keep your IP information private.--4wajzkd02 (talk) 15:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit War Noticeboard report
I've reported the Federal Reserve System and Criticism of the Federal Reserve matter to the Edit War Noticeboard. Please see the post here -  Ravensfire (talk) 22:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. --SineBot (talk) 00:01, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Your 3RR case has been reopened. Please respond
Hello 96.237. Your 3RR case was recently closed as stale, but I've reopened it since I observe that you have continued to revert. You can see the discussion at WP:AN3. I have to tell you that this can't continue ! You've made 11 reverts, altogether, since your first edit on 17 November. We don't tolerate IPs being used for edit warring on contentious articles. May I ask if you will consider creating a registered account? Looking forward to your reply. EdJohnston (talk) 06:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for to prevent further disruption caused by your engagement in an edit war. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below. Per this complaint at WP:AN3 Any admin may lift this block if you will agree to wait for at least one other person on a Talk page to support your view before changing any articles on economics, or on American history, law, politics or institutions. EdJohnston (talk) 16:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


 * So how many other editors need "permission" to make changes to articles?
 * People who come charging right out of the gate as edit warriors get extra scrutiny. I'm not aware of you ever making a single edit that anyone else has supported. It seems that you are a group of one. You are trying to force your unique opinion into economics articles whose mission is to present a balanced view of what is generally thought by most historians and economists. Plus, you quote 18th-century sources as though they were perfectly good evidence for your unique opinion. EdJohnston (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * So what if the reference is 18th century? I am posting about an alternate interpretation of a law and not about economics. The US Supreme routinely looks back hundreds of years to check what the Founding Father had to say when interpreting law. Hell, I once saw a court case on the law of the sea, that made a reference to the prior law of the HANSEATIC LEAGUE  which may have gone back over 500 years. As for support from other people, who should I ask for support from, the person who on his own wiki page states, "I know noting about this issue", or the person who repeatedly fails to give specific objections.71.174.142.108 (talk) 00:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd be happy to help you. However:
 * I'm unconvinced you can be collegial, e.g., ""I know noting about this issue"". My point was (and remains) that I am not a regular editor of this article, and came by and offered my help only because I saw a new editor breaking the rules (WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:BRD, WP:AGF, WP:BATTLEGROUND, etc.)
 * I'm unconvinced you want help - I offered a lot of information and suggestions, and your response ranged from not listening to WP:WIKILAWYERING (e.g., your assertion that editors are acting like they WP:OWN the articles and that they should tag your edits with "citation needed", rather than understanding how the various guidelines (like WP:RS, WP:V. WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE work together).
 * I'm willing to help, but you need to make some substantial changes to your approach. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 02:00, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Did you or did you not post the following on your wiki page? ""I know nothing about this issue""? and with respect to it turning into an edit war - that only happened because you and Ravensfire ganged up on me with repeated and always mistaken allegations of Original Research, likely because neither of you know much about the subject. The fact that you don't know something is not proof that it does not exist. Regarding your issues with being collegial - How many times have I asked for specific objections before you responded and to which Ravesfire has NEVER responded? How collegial is that? Rememebr this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Federal_Reserve_System#4wajzkd02_-_being_CIVIL.


 * Regarding your allegations of not listening you need to look in the mirror to see someone not listening. I repeatedly pointed out that I could not be the originator of a conclusion because someone else had printed the EXACT same conclusion 150 years ago, and that this person has been dead for almost 150 years ago. Do you think I died 150 years ago and that you are now talking with my GHOST?


 * There is a biblical quote which you may not be aware of which I believe fits the current dispute - from my point of view you have the log and I the speck, but from your point of view it is the other way around.

"Or how can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take out the speck that is in your eye,' when you yourself do not see the log that is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the speck that is in your brother's eye. 71.174.142.108 (talk) 02:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * FYI: Looks like my service provider changed my IP address. Per my count I am still banned for about another hour and I will refrain from posting elsewhere under this IP address to evade the block.71.174.142.108 (talk) 00:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * IP 71.174.142.108, host name pool-71-174-142-108.bstnma.east.verizon.net, located in Boston, Massachussets'. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 01:52, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Example, the Supreme Court in the recent Heller gun control case, referenced much that was over 100 years old and a god amount of stuff over 200 years old. Age does not mater when it comes to interpreting law. http://docs.justia.com/cases/supreme/slip/554/07-290/opinion.pdf. Lastly I got a objection of Original research - No claim that something written 150 years ago by a judge, was authored by me can hold even a single drop of water. 71.174.142.108 (talk) 00:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Some specific comments on your change (and general editing thoughts)
As you requested, I'm going to go through one of your more recent postings, and try to explain why it's being called original research and synthesis, and being reverted. I will ask you again to please carefully read the Wikipedia policies on original research, synthesis, notable sources and verifiable sources. Also, look through the undue weight and WP:FRINGE fringe articles. Together (and yes, I realize it's quite a bit), those cover many the standards that all editors are expected to follow. I'm going to go over this particular change to the Criticism of the Federal Reserve article, putting your changes in blockquotes.

These notes however were not legal tender notes but promissory notes stating that the bearer could redeem them for a fixed quantity of gold and silver as stated on the note. The article cites the McCulloch v. Maryland case to assert that the constitutionality of a central bank has addressed by the Supreme Court, and found constitutional "that the act to incorporate the Bank of the United States is a law made in pursuance of the constitution". The case itself mentions bank notes and promissary notes, but it doesn't directly address anything about legal tender.

Your addition comes across as an attempt to discredit the applicability of the case specifically for legal tender. But the ruling doesn't mention legal tender, so how can it address, pro or con, that matter? Nor does the article say that the ruling covers legal tender, only that there is federal authority to "issue bank notes without interference from the states". WP:SYN says that we cannot "imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources", exactly what you've done.

Criticism of the Legal tender cases include that fact that the the federal Government is not a sovereign power, but a power which was created and can be dissolved at any time by the states which are the members of the union.

This is one of the your many statements that are considered original research. Who is saying this criticism? Is it published? It is from a notable individual in the specific area? Without providing any sourcing, this is treated simply as your opinion about the matter, and reverted.

A further criticism is that the power to coin money out of gold and silver has no relation to the power to print money as printing is not "necessary" to coining.

See above.

 Yet another criticism is that the power to print money is not only not "necessary" to the power to "borrow" but is in fact directly opposed to that power since there is no need to "borrow" money if that money ca instead be printed.

Again, see above.

The harshest criticism of the rulings made in the Legal Tender Cases is that there is no record that the US Supreme Court ever examined the fact that during the Constitutional Debates the power to print money was examined and rejected by the delegates on a vote of 9 to 2 as too subject to abuse

I'll start with, see above, but there is more to this. You include a fairly long ref from Madison's Papers, which works fairly well for the "rejected by a vote of 9 to 2" claim. But again, there's nothing for the "no record that the US Supreme Court ever examined" those papers. Is there anything that says they didn't? Simply disagreeing with their opinion and believing that surely they couldn't have come to their conclusion if they had read them won't cut it. It's that whole OR and SYN thing we keep bringing up. There's also the appearance of deception when you have two claims and provide a single source. Without careful checking, someone might assume that both claims are supported by the single source, and they clearly are not.

Since this power was examined and voted down during the Constitutional Convention, it is arguably a Constitutional level power and not a "lesser" power that can be created through the necessary and proper clause.

Again, no sourcing. This is considered original research. You MUST source your statements of fact, opinions and conclusions.

These is even a question as to whether the federal government has the power to make even gold and silver coin legal tender. That power is authorized to the states under Article 1 Section 10 of the U S Constitution "No State shall...make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender". Since this is a "power not prohibited to the states" and per the 10th Amendment a power not prohibited to the states is "reserved to the states", the power to make gold and silver coin legal tender is a "reserved" state power and not a federal power.

You have included a source here, but only for the 10th Amendment. You are again running afoul of WP:OR by stating an opinion without providing a source.

Finally, your additions have a major, fundamental flaw in that they run afoul of the Legal Tender cases. The overwhelming majority of sources consider paper money to be "legal tender" and constitutional. Including views that paper money is not legal tender starts to get close to WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. The current text covers that the opinion does exist, but then goes into why that view is generally dismissing by most sources on the matter. When a view is held by only a small minority, but enough to still be considered notable, that's how they are included in Wikipedia. UNDUE says to cover the views in roughly the prominence of each view in reliable sources. FRINGE says to be careful about giving minority views any more notability than they actually have.

Hopefully this will give you something to consider. Please realize that your changes have been found to not be acceptable for Wikipedia by multiple editors. It is not our place to then correct your material to be acceptable, but for you to review the objections and make the changes accordingly. The usual edit cycle for Wikipedia is be BOLD and make the change, see the change REVERTED and DISCUSS. You have been bold, but have been reverted with edit summaries explaining why we have objected. While you've generally been civil, you've continually tried to put the burden on us to provide exact details, and that's not the way it works. There are some fairly significant problems with your changes, and while this is probably the most detailed explanation you've gotten, others have provide some details as well. We also expect that when you're told the reversion is because of OR, that you'll go and read through the OR policy. That's pretty hard to believe that you've really done that, given the two references you've included in the entire change. Assume Good Faith is core to a viable community, but it goes both ways. You assume that we'll review your changes fairly, but we assume that you'll take our feedback and critically review your changes in lights of that feedback. Ravensfire (talk) 03:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)