User talk:Larklight

Minor Babbeling
hello! Larklight 10:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow...u started mine off an yours is still worse...Ha! Dragon of Xi Liang

Deleting Category:Wikipedians who don't own automobiles
The category, Wikipedians who don't own automobiles, in which you are listed, is being considered for deletion. You may share your thoughts on the matter at this category's entry on the User categories for discussion page. --DieWeibeRose 20:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

"Daftest link ever"
Guess not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.148.215 (talk) 03:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Arthur Birling
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Mr. Arthur Birling, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add db-author to the top of Mr. Arthur Birling. andy 23:29, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Pinkerton National Detective Agency
Hi Larklight - I reverted your insertion on the PNDA page. I took it out primarily because it interrupted the flow of the sentence making it hard to understand. However, it also wasn't sourced, and is likely to generate unnecessary lengthy back-and-forth. Since the history is included pretty well on the full Homestead Strike page, where the various assertions of guilt & responsibility can be better and more accurately detailed, I think the shorter summary style on the PNDA page is appropriate. If you think otherwise, though, let's talk about it on the Talk:Pinkerton National Detective Agency page. Cheers, Lquilter (talk) 21:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Road
I remvoed your recent addition to Road "There is disagreement as to whether markets would be able to construct roads without Government intervention." It is unreferenced and does not represent a balanced point of view. If you have questions or comments please leave a note on my talk page. Jeepday (talk) 03:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Please read the response to your question and address the topic before reverting edits. Jeepday (talk) 15:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Response at my talk page Jeepday (talk) 16:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

February 2008
Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Children In Need, without good reason. This removal of content does not appear constructive, and your edit has been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox for test edits. Thank you. Paul210 (talk) 23:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I didn't think it was relivant at all. Discuss at article talk page? I'm not that attacted to the edit. Larklight (talk) 18:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The Children In Need Controversy section has been reinstated. This story about Wogan's fee provoked much discussion in the press and a referenced source was provided for this. Paul210 (talk) 22:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky
Hi. I reverted some of your most recent edits to this article, but the earlier ones - which seemed reasonable - I left. Please do me a favour, before adding more material from newcriterion and Metzl, both of which are highly problematic sources, read this short article by Chomsky (picked more or less at random) and tell me what is so problematic to you about what he has to say. It's far better to read the work of someone you intend to target than to read his or her critics - who may have their own axes to grind. Pinkville (talk) 23:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I have reverted all of Larklight's changes. This user has personal issues with Noam Chomsky, who (s)he keeps calling "Chompsky". (diff) It's not acceptable behaviour. smb (talk) 00:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Your comment
Thanks! Nick Graves (talk) 03:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Economic calculation argument
I hope you don't get upset by my reversions on Economic calculation argument - we've had to fight an ongoing war to stop the page being turned into a debating zone rather than an ecncyclopaedia article. Most of the points you covered are already icnluded in the article. teh main person who has worked on that article with me is User:Ultramarine who I believe is of similar political/economic persuasions to yourself, and I believe the article is largely balanced at the minute. I'm keen for it to stay that way (especially compared to the state it once got in). I'm alweays willing to hear constructive arguments towards it, all i ask is that both sides resist the urge to stick a rebuttal after each point. Cheers --Red Deathy (talk) 07:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

My talk page
Your comments on my talk page are ludicrous. You reverted my edit on the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act page, then added a comment on my page criticizing me for "blanking of unsoruced matereal (sic) without instead requesting citations.". Maybe you can explain why you reverted the edit without adding the 'citations requested' tag yourself.

In any case, I'm well aware that you and the Wikipedia coterie of Libertarian-style economics acolytes are attempting to prevent me and others from undoing the blatant propaganda you've spammed in the economics articles. Why you think you'll succeed is beyond me. J.R. Hercules (talk) 02:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Utility monster
Hey, sorry about not giving a reason for the change. Especially since our interpretations differ fundamentally. I actually took that spin verbatim from a book. I'll get back to you in a bit with the specifics, so we can come to a compromise :) LoveOfFate (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Check this out:

http://books.google.com/books?id=VRsgtSBMh0YC

Page 258 is viewable. Top few lines. LoveOfFate (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Naomi Klein.
"A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." So it is 3RR. Hence:

Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule (3RR) prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --Regebro (talk) 19:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I didn't realise it including reverting differrent matereal. And I had reverted myself earlyer. Larklight (talk) 13:26, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Nice try, but you are not an administrator
Do not leave threatening messages on my talk page -- especially ones that wrongly imply that you have some sort of administrative authority. Actually, it would be best if you not leave messages of any type on my talk page again. J.R. Hercules (talk) 15:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

unemployment reference
Hello Larklight--Can you be more specific in your reference to the 2005 Budget report? I wasn't able to find the quote when I looked. Cretog8 (talk) 10:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey--OK, since neither of us can find it, I'm going to pull it out. Maybe the paper you got it from had it wrong. Cretog8 (talk) 17:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. I might come back at it later. It's pretty POV, but so is everything else in that section, so I don't want to hit the supply side unfairly. If you can say the same thing via somebody else's words, it would be safe. Cretog8 (talk) 19:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Self-welcome
To keep the link convenient Larklight (talk) 21:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

re User:J.R. Hercules, Opposition to trade unions and RfC
Hi, I am looking into this following the AIV report - and would ask you to link to the rfc. Please reply here, as I will be watching the page. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Um, do you mean [this]? If there's a special page for it, sorry, I don't know about it. (have never done this before) Larklight (talk) 20:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Er... yeah, there is a little bit more involved - see WP:Requests for comment. A RfC should be noted there so third parties know where the dispute is, and the RfC needs to have examples of the behaviour that requires comment. A good way to find out what happens is to look at a few examples listed on the sub-page (go to the disputed article and see how it developed in the history). I suggest you try to run the process again, once you are more familiar with process. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to start a request for comment, I'm requesting a block. If there is a special page to do with it, I never noticed it; the conclusion of the RfC is there on the page. Do you mean the RfC was handled incorrectly? Larklight (talk) 20:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The RfC was not properly concluded, so it appears that you and J.R. Hercules are still in a content dispute. It is unlikely that an AIV report will then succeed, unless the other party violates some other WP policy. If you have a proper RfC and it is decided that JR H should not only make mention of Hitler, but include other figures/political parties, and they persist in edit warring over the matter then an AIV report is likely to succeed. In short, you brought the block request to the right place - but there is not sufficient policy violation to enable a block to be made. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, lets do a RfC then. Thankyou, hadn't realised the RfC wasn't correct. Larklight (talk) 21:06, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hang on, having read the RfC page, does this mean I simply have to wait for the 30 days on the RfC? Larklight (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Maximum of 30 days; if it is cut and dried and it is decided that a party is incorrect in what they are doing very quickly, then it can be ended sooner. The net result may not be a block, because the disputing parties may find that the dispute is over. This is the way things are supposed to be done, as blocking is always a measure of last resort and resolution by discussion is the preferred method. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

M.A.D.
Hi--Could you explain your Mutual assured destruction changes? (Probably in the talk page rather than here.) I'm inclined to object, but might as well talk before reverting. Cretog8 (talk) 20:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Milton Friedman
Milton Friedman would probably not maintain his view in the face of the low savings rates today and the deteriorating Net International Investment Position. Milton's case was a long run prospect that short run trade deficits would be beneficial. Most economists are agreeable to that anyway. What they are not agreeable on is structural long run trade deficits. By what implication do you see the reverse, where Milton would have implied his endorsement of trade deficits for structural long run widening trade deficits for the U.S. with high social costs? His citation of trade deficits during the depression to bolster his case is an example of why he implied a short run view. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 17:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I also read Free To Choose. It was a popular and influential book. However, many of its blanket propositions of allying concerns over fiscal and trade deficits were under markedly different circumstances. Reagan's fiscal policy of tax cuts and budget deficits in the 1980s were during times of much smaller trade deficits hence with more efficacious circumstances. Reagan's fiscal policy also included a plan for reductions in the 'rate of growth' in spending. Reagan's policy included measures to boost saving with IRAs and with indexing tax rates to inflation.  As you say, that Milton opposed long run low savings or structurally low saving, should evidence to you that he implied a short run endorsement of trade deficits, not an endorsement of long run and widening structural deficits. Admittedly we can't say for certain. Most economists would hold the view that a savings surplus tends to generate a trade surplus, Milton would probably have been no different. Milton would have likely supported proposals to boost savings. He probably would have opposed Greenspan's tightening prior to 9/11/01 also and would probably have supported more drastic monetary loosing following 9/11 in view of Milton's own recitation of monetary history and his criticisms of tight money during the depression. We are delighted to have positive numbers on the economy, GDP low unemployment numbers, etc. the concern for many of us is that the thing could give way since much of the GDP is consumer spending driven, possibly as much as two thirds of GDP is consumer spending driven, and much of that may be due to borrowing, if that is the case the present economy may be more shakey than we'd like it to be. The concerns over trade problems by critics are real, they are not protectionist over reaction.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 17:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * You seem quite knowledgeable yourself. That's why I'm spending some capital to win you over. Your comments seem to suggest the question of whether a Current Account deficit is sustainable? Friedman, in his wisdom probably thought it wasn't sustainable anyway and that the situation would find an equilibrium. However politically, it gets more complicated with currency pegs and partisan posturing. Partisan posturing has cost the economy. It seems both Reagan, Friedman, et. al., were planning on a strong dollar to fight inflation at that time. However, if the investment climate for U.S becomes unstable, the dollar might collapse. Simply, the risk premium on U.S assets rises as the profit potential of U.S. assets falls. When U.S assets themselves are burdened with debt, beseiged with declines in U.S equity markets, and faced with insurmountable costs of doing business, foreign capital may find somewhere else to invest. Additionally, market fears propel overvaluation of commodities like oil and food at the expense of stocks US unveils new rules on overseas oil trades. The U.S has had record corporate bankruptcies in recent years, yet the situation persists. Should U.S. consumer spending slow, it could worsen the attractiveness of U.S investments. Take a look at this article,  Debt and the Dollar if you already haven't seen it which shows empirically the decline in Net International Investment Position over time. And for sake of discussion, it presumes cases where it may good for foreign control of U.S assets, which many believe is not necessarily the case. The policy of exporting U.S debt in exchange for low wage goods and control over some U.S assets does not appear to be mutally beneficial trade. Development would be better served by boosting savings and wages in third world economies that they might afford U.S exports. However, that requires the diplomatic wherewithal. One debateable case is Chrysler, the company was aguably, exploited by raiders, looted by foreign investors of key assets and profit, and then left to be rebuilt by American capital.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 20:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This is one of my favorite articles which appeared in the Economist April of 2005 The shift away from thrift, but there are many like it. Again empirically, something appears to be amiss with the theory or U.S savings would not be as low as it is. The lowest savings rate since 1933 and all this foreign investment. . . hum. Think about it, foreign investment in the U.S. has never been higher, with 25 percent of U.S equities under some form of foreign control, yet the US savings rate is the lowest since 1933. How much is enough before the theory becomes junk? If it were the reverse and savings were soaring in the U.S. and profits in the U.S were rising or even stable the other side could claim they were right. The fed has rates at 2% and the stock market is still anemic. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 20:33, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Probably the best way to reduce or eliminate trade deficits and budget deficits, ceteris paribus, assuming a world of free floating exhange rates, is to boost savings rates, and not by raising tax rates. Maintain a long term sound dollar policy (not artificially strong or weak). A painless way to boost savings rates and balance the budget without raising taxes is to exempt capital gains from tax completely for at least the first $100K or $200K of income and maybe higher, cut US corporate tax rates to make them internationlly competitive. This plan was my idea by the way (so if you've seen it before . . .). Removing taxes from capital formation within reason will boost savings. Transfer employee benefits plans and health care plans from U.S corporate books to fully funded non profits like a Voluntary Employee Benefits Association 509c3. Fully fund the nonprofits through tax breaks to U.S businesses who transfer their health care funds over in order to accelerate the process (this could be the US corporate tax rate cut). U.S equities are undervalued for the simple reason that they carry too much long term debt on their books. US corporations borrow during down times to fund the benefit largess. The suggestion is for the DOW to be closer to 25,000 not 12,000. The benefit from the increased savings would be stronger GDP growth and stronger U.S equities. Increased valuation of US equities would not be inflationary as some tight money advocates would probably claim, since the valuation is self regulating. If too many investors sell in order to spend the value would fall, hence there is no inflation from realizing equity value, but there would be increased GDP growth. As savings rises, the market rate of interest would naturally reach a more competitive level as borrowing diminished. Economist Ravi Batra suggested a novel device for dealing with China, which pegs its currency, create a multi-tier exchange rate for U.S exports until the other trading partner de-pegs their currency. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 21:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Economics is dynamic. On Milton Friedman and Reagan's economic policies, keep in mind that they had a set of problems to solve and they customized a policy to deal with those problems under conditions of the time. Reagan pursued a strong dollar policy to quell high inflation and high interest rates. For that time, under those conditions it proved the proper policy. The conditions today have changed somewhat, so the prescription may be different. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 22:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Michael Gove.JPG
Thank you for uploading Image:Michael Gove.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sdrtirs (talk) 15:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

What you need to do
Then, the image is accepted on Wikipedia. Have a good work! Regards, Sdrtirs (talk) 21:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) If you don't have the information about it's copyright status, you have to email the office again asking what is the copyright of this image. You can see details on Copyrights, Copyright FAQ and Image copyright tags;
 * 2) After received the email with copyright information, beware it must be a license accepted by Wikipedia otherwise it will be deleted, you to forward the email to OTRS and add OTRS pending to the image description;
 * 3) When you received an email from OTRS indicating the ticket number, replace by.

Your edits -
Please do not add content without citing reliable sources. Before making potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. If you are familiar with Citing sources please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Contact me if you need assistance adding references.

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information.

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia.

-- John (Daytona2 · Talk ·  Contribs) 09:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The Snowball
Thanks for your edits on The Snowball: Warren Buffett and the Business of Life. MHLU (talk) 23:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Michael Gove
Your recent edits are riddled with spelling mistakes. I understand that some people have difficulty spelling, but please can you use a browser with spell checking facilities? Thanks. TrulyBlue (talk) 10:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Responded to your question re: Vandalism
In case you're not monitoring my talk page, i responded to your question. Thanks. Quaeler (talk) 23:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

February 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article.  Barkeep   Chat 06:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Michael Gove MP.JPG
Thanks for uploading File:Michael Gove MP.JPG I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► stannator ─╢ 16:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Unemployment Measurement and Disabled People
I've been in contact with the Office of National Statistics concerning your comment about unemployment measurement and disabled people in Sweden and the UK. They have replied that whether or not a person is considered to be disabled is not a relevant factor in determining whether or not they are unemployed. The procedure that office uses to measure unemployment is defined by the International Labour Organization, which is discussed in the measurement section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MGriebe (talk • contribs) 02:55, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Economics census
Hello there. Sorry to bother you, but you are (titularly at least) a member of WP:WikiProject Economics, as defined by this category. If you don't know me, I'm a Wikipedia administrator, but an unqualified economist. I enjoy writing about economics, but I'm not very good at it, which is why I would like to support in any way I can the strong body of economists here on Wikipedia. I'm only bothering you because you are probably one of them. Together, I'd like us to establish the future direction of WikiProject Economics, but first, we need to know who we've got to help.

Whatever your area of expertise or level of qualification, if you're interested in helping with the WikiProject (even if only as part of a larger commitment to this wonderful online encyclopedia of ours), would you mind adding your signature to this page? It only takes a second. Thank you.

Message delivered on behalf of User:Jarry1250 by LivingBot.

"Paperclipping"?
Hi Larklight, no one seems to understand what you meant in this Aug. 21 edit to the technological singularity article when you wrote "In the same way that evolution has no inherent tendancy to produce outcomes valued by humans, so too there is little reason to expect an arbitrary optimisation process to promote an outcome desired by mankind, rather than paperclipping the universe." Can you elaborate, or change the wording? Thanks. Hypnosifl (talk) 21:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Never mind, I figured out what you meant after seeing your previous edit to paper clip. Best to avoid phrases like that whose meaning isn't evident without having read the full text of all the references, though. Hypnosifl (talk) 06:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Invariant Society Logo.gif
Thanks for uploading File:Invariant Society Logo.gif. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Invariant Society Logo.gif
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Invariant Society Logo.gif. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 01:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added a rationale to the image page. Sorry, I should have just done that in the first place. J Milburn (talk) 12:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Reference on "Unemployment"
Footnote #7 in Unemployment, which you added in 2009, points to a book (?) which I could not find on WorldCat. Could you please clear this? Also, ever since Card & Krueger (1994) the effect of minimum wages is debated in modern economics, and this debate is far from over. So I think the statement you added is factually wrong. --bender235 (talk) 21:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Here is the textbook in question. It's the first result if you google "Alain Anderton Economics". I will remove the 'unreliable' tag as this is a very mainstream textbook. I am familiar with Card and Krueger which is why I used a 21st century reference. Thanks for the comment. Larklight (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)