User talk:Reissgo

Message for SPECIFICO: Lack of talk

 * On this page its says "editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions." On the talk page I have A) given an example of when a bank can make a loan without acting as an intermediary B) explained why your assertion that "if the bank had no deposits, it could not have made the loan" is incorrect. and C) shown how its not just the BoE that have a problem with describing banks simply as intermediaries, but also the Fed. If you ignore these things on talk then wiki tells me that I can assume that you are conceding these points. Please to not make edits to the main page as if you were not conceding them without contributing to talk first. Reissgo (talk) 08:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

EDIT WARRING
You are at 3RR on Fractional Reserve Banking. This warning is to facilitate reporting you to the appropriate disciplinary board.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

SPECIFICO talk  22:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * As I pointed out before, wiki says: "editors who ignore talk page discussions yet continue to edit in or revert disputed material may be guilty of disruptive editing and incur sanctions." Where is your discussion about the four instances of the same (disputed) concept? Reissgo (talk) 23:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't want you to suffer a needless block. Go look on the 3RR noticeboard and see how the edit warring rule is enforced. No justification you might offer is going to excuse you from a violation there.  Have a look at the archives and please reflect.  SPECIFICO  talk  23:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * What do you think I should do when you, as the only person that has objected to my edit, refused to discuss the issues on talk? Reissgo (talk) 23:53, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

FEE
While the Austrians have had influence on FEE & its people, the article itself does not mention AE. Nor does the talk page have an AE sanctions template. Thus, as long as no edits are made regarding particular people -- who are Austrian -- I do not think a TBAN violation occurred. – S. Rich (talk) 18:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The words "Austrian Economics" does appear three times on the main page (all within the references section). So I'd say SPECIFICO is sailing close to the wind. I had never heard of an "AE sanctions template" before, I guess that's the "Discretionary sanctions|topic=ae" in the page source. So I presume that's what defines whether a page is considered to be connected to the Austrian School. Is that right? Reissgo (talk) 18:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Discretionary sanctions is the template. Unless some source says "FEE is an Austrian Economics inspired organization" I don't see how we can say the article comes under the sanctions regime. As the edit simply involved the address, I don't see a problem. – S. Rich (talk) 21:04, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * perhaps we need a better definition of broadly construed, in the ban. from the freeman aka fee.org/the_freeman/, a publication/subdomain of Foundation for Economic Education, FEE's economic adviser, Austrian School economist Ludwig von Mises Darkstar1st (talk) 13:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
the one  sean  13:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

FYI
I'm not banned from Schiff's article. You should not be stalking my edits. I suggest you find a good RS which verifies the article text or else replace the article improvement tag you deleted. I'm not here to discuss this, just to inform you and suggest you do the right thing. SPECIFICO talk  19:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * "You are topic-banned from everything and everyone related to the Austrian School of economics, in addition to your previous topic ban covering the Ludwig von Mises Institute and persons related to it.". Peter Schiff could scarcely be more associated with the Austrian school and the LvM institute if he went round wearing Lederhosen and saying "I'll be back". FYI here's a link to him delivering the "2009 Henry Hazlitt Memorial Lecture, recorded at the annual Austrian Scholars Conference, Ludwig von Mises Institute."... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgMclXX5msc Reissgo (talk) 19:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Velcro / Aspirin
I hope you will also remove much of the content of the Aspirin article, and put it in an article called Acetyl salicylic acid Like "Velcro", "Aspirin" is a commercial trade name. It belongs to the Bayer company. DOwenWilliams (talk) 22:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Looks like someone else has just combined the two articles already. Reissgo (talk) 11:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

User Specifico
I have had past problems with this editor trying to bully his way through a content dispute. His attitude was very similar to the one you encountered (telling you that you can't tell him on his talk page that he is violating a topic ban and making thinly veiled threats). If this continues I suggest taking him to WP:ANI. If that happens I will gladly report other incidents of his problem behaviors. Sundayclose (talk) 00:40, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The assertion that Specifico is violating his topic ban by editing on Molyneaux is a quite a stretch. (The article and his user talk page are on my watchlist.) Why? There is no sourcing that ties Molyneaux to the Austrian School. If there were, we might be able categorize Molyneaux as an Austrian School personality. At that point Specifico would be in trouble if he edited there – but not now. During the ArbCom debate I wrote in favor of this particular topic ban. Moreover, if I saw Specifico violating his topic ban I would certainly advocate for sanctions. That said, I suggest you (Reissgo) stay away from his user talk page. Thanks.  – S. Rich (talk) 06:13, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * OK, let's consider the connection between Molyneux and the Austrian School:
 * On his Wiki page, the first item on his list of interests in Anarcho-Capitalism which is very close to Austrian Economics. You only need to see how many times the word "Austrian" appears on the Wiki page for Anarcho-Capitalism to see that.
 * If you do a google search ["Stefan Molyneux" "Austrian economics"] (notice the quotes), you get 8,800 items.
 * See here and here for the Mises Institute writing about Molyneux.
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reissgo (talk • contribs)


 * Google "Paul Krugman" "Austrian economics" and you get 21,600 items. The Mises-wiki link (your first cite) uses the text from Wikipedia. Search "Krugman" on the Mises library page (second cite) and you get 5 pages of hits. Until reliable sources say Anarcho-Capitalism is a subset of the Austrian School, you have no case. (And if reliable sources said A-S was a subset of A-C you'd have to show that Molyneaux adheres or advocates A-S thought.) IOW, please provide  stronger rationale. Complaining about Specifico's edits on Molyneaux is a no go at this stage.  – S. Rich (talk) 15:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

I have just been through the Wiki text for Molyneux, the following text appears in this order:


 * anarcho-capitalism
 * libertarian
 * anarcho-capitalist
 * Austrian School economist Robert P. Murphy,
 * Austrian School proponent Peter Schiff,
 * Jeffrey Tucker of the Ludwig von Mises Institute has described Molyneux as "probably the single most influential libertarian thinker of our times"
 * Molyneux has been a frequent guest host of the Peter Schiff Show
 * Molyneux identifies as a libertarian- or more specifically, a laissez-faire anarcho-capitalist,
 * stateless society
 * anarcho-capitalism
 * The Mises Review

Now let's consider the very close relationship between anarcho-capitalism and austrian economics (I would struggle to tell them apart). First of all it appears that Murray Rothbard is credited with having invented(?) anarcho capitalism. On the wiki page for Rothbard, the very first sentence is: "Murray Newton Rothbard was an American economist of the Austrian School". On the wiki page for anarcho-capitalism we see the following text samples:

Reissgo (talk) 17:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The first person to use the term, however, was Murray Rothbard, who in the mid-20th century synthesized elements from the Austrian School of economics...
 * A Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist society...
 * Rothbard is credited with coining the term "Anarcho-capitalism"
 * The Austrian school of economics...
 * Friedrich von Hayek wrote...
 * Another Austrian economist, Ludwig von Mises, wrote...
 * Rothbard attempted to meld Austrian economics with...
 * he was briefly involved with Ayn Rand,...
 * Rothbard was a student of Austrian Economics
 * Rothbard sought to meld 19th-century American individualists' advocacy of free markets and private defense with the principles of Austrian economics:
 * They, like all Austrian economists, believe that...

BTW, SPECIFICO's topic ban says "topic-banned from everything and everyone related to the Austrian School of economics". Now "related to" is a pretty broad term, it does not mean the same thing as "a signed up member of". So, is Molyneux related to Austrian economics? I think so. Reissgo (talk) 17:17, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Once RS actually gets Molyneux into the Austrian School or into the Mises Institute we can keep Specifico from editing his article. But the connections you describe are weak, round-about, original-research (your own "struggle") type descriptions. Since we do NOT have RS coming up with a "all Anarcho-Capitalists are Austrian-Schoolists; Molyneux is an Anarcho-Capitalist; therefore, Molyneux is an Austrian-Schoolist" description, we cannot keep Specifico from editing the article. Also, his recent edits have been mere redactions of Molyneaux's YouTube videos. I support such reverts because I do not want WP to be Molyneux's WP:SOAPBOX.  – S. Rich (talk) 02:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * You seem to be equating "related to" and "a signed up member of". We may have to agree to differ on this point. By the way, what would you say to SPECIFICO editing the Peter Schiff page? (as he did after his ban). If Peter is not "related to" Austrian economics I'll eat my shorts. (here he is delivering The 2009 Henry Hazlitt Memorial Lecture, Recorded at the annual Austrian Scholars Conference, Ludwig von Mises Institute, 13 March 2009.) Reissgo (talk) 10:48, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * excellent point. i interpret the topic ban to mean go edit flowers or fish. Rich also makes a great point that the edits are trivial. I suspect this isn't the last time we will discuss this ban. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Take another look at Specifico's TBAN. It is for Mises.org-related articles only. He is free to edit Austrian School-related articles (which might include Peter Schiff). See |the ArbCom decision here. Now that both of us are clear on the scope of the topic ban it is really time to close this discussion. (But to be clear, if Specifico edited Schiff's article to mention the Hazlitt lecture at Mises, he'd be in trouble.) – S. Rich (talk) 01:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC) 01:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * It appears his ban was later broadened. I found this on an old version of his talk page: "The following sanction now applies to you: You are topic-banned from everything and everyone related to the Austrian School of economics, in addition to your previous topic ban covering the Ludwig von Mises Institute and persons related to it." Reissgo (talk) 09:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Please provide a link on the expansion of the TBAN. Re: Schiff, you are aware that Specifico edited twice in the last two years. The 1 March 2014 edit was pre-TBAN and the 19 March 2015 was to tag cn (was this after the TBAN was expanded?) You reverted the 2015 edit. This is not a BFD. Still, we can both put Schiff on our watch lists and stand by ready to pounce if he edits that article again. – S. Rich (talk) 18:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Broadening link: here dated 4th October 2014. I.e. he edited Schiff after the expansion. He also recently edited Ayn Rand:

''From wiki: She became friends with journalist Henry Hazlitt and his wife, and Hazlitt introduced her to the Austrian School economist Ludwig von Mises. Despite her philosophical differences with them, Rand strongly endorsed the writings of both men throughout her career, and both of them expressed admiration for her. Once Mises referred to Rand as "the most courageous man in America", a compliment that particularly pleased her because he said "man" instead of "woman".'' Reissgo (talk) 08:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Edit Warring at Positive Money
When your bold edit is reverted, you should engage on talk and present the reason for your removal. In this case, it is unjustifiable. The reason for these tags is to improve articles by attracting editors who can address whatever issue is tagged. In this case, editors will see all the tagged articles and some of them will come by with additions that will help bring the article up to WP standards. As it currently stands now, the article is likely to be deleted because it cites only self-interested and affiliated sources and is full of misinformation and citations of opinion as fact. I advise you to undo your removal and support WP process. At some point, if you continue a pattern of WP:NOTHERE, the community will tire of these disruptive edits. SPECIFICO talk  13:54, 16 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Your comments here are a mix of A) Criticisms of my editing personally - which quite correctly you have put on my talk page and B) stuff relating to your suggested reasons for the tag, which should in fact be placed on the Positive money talk page. Would you mind placing the "B" parts in the right place so that all interested editors can see them. Let us see whether other editors concur with you that the Wall Street Journal and the Financial Times are "self-interested and affiliated sources". Reissgo (talk) 14:10, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Re: Fractional Reserve Banking
Hello, I know nothing about this subject so have no input to make there. Graham 87 08:23, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your quick response! Anyway, OK, no worries. Reissgo (talk) 08:25, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I too have no knowledge of the topic. I went to the article to read about it, having read (but not fully understood) the BoE paper. But as a general principle, WP must never get ahead of the curve (aka POV pushing). It is clear that current broad consensus has not changed and therefore the WP article should not change. At the very most, it may draw attention to alternative models [citing sources of course] but absolutely not ([per WP:SYN) try to make the sources fit a specific view. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds like your comments would have fitted perfectly on the FRB talk page - but I won't push you there if you feel uncomfortable. I agree with you about not getting ahead of the curve - my argument is that the curve has already passed and we'd better catch up! With regard the "broad consensus" - well it depends on which group you think it is important to include, is it central bankers/academic economists/private bankers, how far down the expertise pyramid should you include in your survey? I would contest that at the *top* levels there has already been consensus for a long time (agreeing with the BoE paper). Reissgo (talk) 13:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd love to help but I've already lost my faith in Wikipedia - all they ever do is follow the mainstream line, no matter how full of conflicts of interest it is. I've seen WP editors consider a tabloid a more reliable source than an organisation's own website! (see the Zeitgeist Movement page and how it cheerily parrots false accusations from "Tablet Magazine") Considering the powerful interests behind keeping the banking system the way it is, it'll be hard to change the mainstream view, even if a few prominent people like Graeber and Wolf write otherwise, even if the Bank of England itself does so. Until we get more central banks around the world posting similar reports, it is probably not enough for Wikipedia "standards". Maybe creating a new page "Money Creation in the UK" and adding it as a sub-section on the main money creation page might be allowed, since the issue is definitely settled for this country.


 * There's also a paper published by Richard Werner: "Can banks individually create money out of nothing? — The theories and the empirical evidence" which runs a real-world experiment to empirically prove which way it works for the first time ever. But I bet if you were to cite that on Wikipedia, someone would shout "primary research!" and take it down.


 * But it's okay. Smart people already know that for controversial issues, an article's Talk page often has more truth than the article itself ;) --Melarish (talk) 18:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I can sympathise with all of that. Reissgo (talk) 09:47, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

You don;'t seem to understand WP:V
Please read the fundamental WP policies about sourcing article content. If you are unable to confine your edits to what's said in the cited sources, you will continue to get no support for your efforts. King does not say what you've put in that article. In fact, King has said very little of what you attempt to attribute to him across the board. It's not surprising that you, not being trained in economics, finance, accounting, or banking, would misunderstand his statements. Nevertheless you cannot use King's words to promote your own theories and conjectures. Fair warning. You should undo your reinsertion of that revert. In general, once your edit has been reverted and the reason spelled out either in an edit comment or on talk, you should not reinsert prior to seeking consensus. SPECIFICO talk  16:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I found a better reference, see QE talk page.
 * While we're on the subject of general editing behaviour, it seems that you've almost completely stopped debating any issues with me. Your only contributions to talk page discussions that I'm involved in are along the lines of telling other editors "don't listen to him". This is against wiki policies. Talk pages are for debating *the issues*. If you want to tell me I'm an idiot, or behaving badly then user pages are the place. Reissgo (talk) 09:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * So you undid my latest QE edit - I look forward to hearing your response (*on the issues*) to may argument I put on the QE talk page. Reissgo (talk) 09:47, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Obviously if none are forthcoming, wiki says I can assume you are conceding. Reissgo (talk) 09:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No, policy says the burden is on you. Ignore it at your peril. I never told you that you are an idiot. That sounds like a cheap excuse for your behaviour. SPECIFICO  talk  11:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * this is all academic now.... see "sources checked out and this is definately an improvement over the confusing circluar definition" in QE talk. Reissgo (talk) 12:34, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Mervyn
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. SPECIFICO  talk  09:27, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

December 2016
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Fractional-reserve banking. ... richi (hello) 22:23, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Unsourced???? I gave a reference to a video of the guy speaking! Reissgo (talk) 23:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. SPECIFICO talk  23:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Final warning RE: SYNTH POV and Edit Warring.
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia.

You are a WP:SPA. You should revert your edit which has been challenged as SYNTH because it reads as if Mervyn is saying that the Great Depression would have been worse...

This is the last time I'm going to ask you to stop your disruptive editing. SPECIFICO talk  18:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Re: "it reads as if Mervyn is saying that the Great Depression would have been worse..."... If you want to discuss content (as opposed to your tedious repeated wikilawyering) then the talk page is the place to do it. I am happy to discuss those issues there. Reissgo (talk) 11:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * the numerous warnings could be construed the wrong way Specifico. perhaps it best you let someone else issue warnings from now on and unfollow this editor. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Nah. They're a prerequisite to Arbcom or ANI.  SPECIFICO  talk  17:06, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
 * lol, you would know, see ya there! Darkstar1st (talk) 23:13, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

A question for SPECIFICO

 * On the money creation page I modified an existing sentence to become "in most countries today, most of the money supply is in the form of bank deposits, which is created by private banks in a fractional reserve banking system".

The reason I am bringing this up on this talk page rather than the talk page of money creation is that I am pretty sure that you already know that the sentence is perfectly correct an uncontentious. So why did you undo that edit? Reissgo (talk) 00:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Stop Bank and Money
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Do not reinsert a challenged edit without consensus on talk. Nobody has supported your POV edit on talk. SPECIFICO talk  13:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC) Do not use edit comments for personal remarks or disparagement. SPECIFICO talk  12:01, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Fractional-reserve banking
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

SPECIFICO talk  14:50, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

COI Positive Money
Please read WP:COI and state whether you have any conflict of interest with respect to Positive Money according to site policy. You are a single purpose account and appear to be using WP to promote your pet agenda.  SPECIFICO talk 01:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Unlike you, I aim to abide by all Wikipedia policies. Reissgo (talk) 09:22, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Sovereign Money Initiative
For your information, see Swiss sovereign money referendum, 2018 and Articles for deletion/Swiss sovereign money referendum, 2018. Adèle Fisher (talk) 13:51, 13 April 2018 (UTC).

FRB
You are looking for a block or ban, IMO. I very clearly stated the rationale for my edit and your drive-by reinstatement of your garbled conflation of the institution with some recent academic approaches is not only confusing to our readers. It's also a stupid presentation that obscures the real topic of Fractional Reserve Banking. I realize that after a decade or more as a Single Purpose Account here you have no constructive improvements to offer -- that's up to you -- but please don't dumb down what could eventually be a cogent article on the subject. As noted in my article comment, one constructive contribution you might consider -- if you are willing to devote any real effort here -- is to begin an article on the subject that seems most to rankle you, namely the ways in which misleading or outdated models are used in pre-2000 undergraduate textbooks. I suggest you self-revert your double dip, which is the third time you've made that edit and which I will report when things are a bit less busy here at the bank. Quarterly repoprting and all... SPECIFICO talk 10:19, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN
Look up the policy RE: BURDEN. You are a Single Purpose Account that has made no constructive contribution to this site in the years you've been here. You are pushing primary sourced cherrypicked content with no policy-based rationale. You have made no effort to find secondary RS on the subject, nor to relate it to the topic of the page. I am asking you to self-revert your second reinstatement of this unsupported content. Otherwise I will seek to have you banned at a time of my choosing. Everyone is welcome to edit this site, but nobody is welcome to ignore our methods of collaboration and standards for valid content.  SPECIFICO talk 17:03, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you would be wasting the time of other editors because your allegations are not borne out by the facts. Reissgo (talk) 07:11, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)