User talk:WithGLEE

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 must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) 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. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gold backwardation

From the article: Backwardation very seldom arises in money commodities like gold or silver. In the early 1980s, there was a one-day backwardation in silver while some metal was physically moved from COMEX to CBOT warehouses.[citation needed] Gold has historically been positive with exception for momentary backwardations (hours) since gold futures started trading on the Winnipeg Commodity Exchange in 1972.[4]

Six months ago (November 2013) gold went into backwardation for the first time ever. It has now been in backwardation for those full six months. Should that not cause us to reflect on the article statement above? WithGLEE (talk) 13:31, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What became of the Hatfield and Chambers assassins?

In the midst of this tense situation, Sid Hatfield traveled to McDowell County on 1 August 1921 to stand trial for charges of dynamiting a coal tipple. Along with him traveled a good friend, Ed Chambers, and their two wives.[28] As they walked up the courthouse stairs, unarmed and flanked by their wives, a group of Baldwin-Felts agents standing at the top of the stairs opened fire. Hatfield was killed instantly, while Chambers' bullet-riddled body rolled to the bottom of the stairs. Over Sally Chambers' protestation, one of the agents ran down the stairs and shot Chambers once more in the back of the head point blank.

Seems like these assassins would have been identified and prosecuted. Why is there no mention of what happened to them? If nothing happened to punish them, this is hugely significant.

Following the battle, 985 miners were indicted for murder, conspiracy to commit murder, accessory to murder, and treason against the State of West Virginia. Though some were acquitted by sympathetic juries, many were also imprisoned for a number of years, though they were paroled in 1925.

Notice above that the law was brought to bear on the miners ... but no mention of the law being brought to bear on the Hatfield/Chambers assassins. Why not?

WithGLEE (talk) 10:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Money for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use 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. Thank you. General Ization ^Talk 00:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, as you did at Talk:Criticism of democracy, you may be blocked from editing. General Ization ^Talk 00:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Spanish Armada, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of Gravelines. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use talk pages for inappropriate discussion, you may be blocked from editing. You've been warned about this before. Talk pages are not the place for you to chat about your own unorthodox views. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 22:51, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2022

Talk pages on Wikipedia are used to discuss improvements to an article. Please stop using talk pages such as Talk:Democracy as forums for discussion. Curiocity1 (talk) 09:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I read the "talk" and "history" pages of almost every Wikipedia article I read...especially those I know to be biased or wrong...which is many. In rare cases where I know the truth which is being buried, I make a "talk" comment. I find many many articles with grammar, spelling, and other "minor" errors and I fix those. When I'm not absolutely sure, I add a comment in "talk" and hope someone else will fix them.

I am well aware of material to be found in "talk"...and am pleased to see that much of the content there is in the same category as mine (i.e. calling an obvious spade a spade). It is what separates Wikipedia from the Grolliers, World Book, Americana, and Britannica I grew up with 65 years ago. Many many of those old school articles were works of just one person giving just one point of view...and read today are easily seen as propaganda.

As long as Wikipedia doesn't have a "conversation" or "town hall" facility (which would be better if people like you continue to censor "talk") , I will continue to use the "talk" pages as everyone else does. I "never" edit the article content directly...though there is a huge temptation to do so.

BTW: A correction of provably wrong content "is" an improvement to an article. Where it is controversial...or calls the article out as defective in truth, it needs to have the subject opened. My particular comments regarding "money" are relevant...and attacked. I'm sure we are now seeing such types regarding COVID which are proving to be correct as well. Don't spoil a good thing.

Someone even added an article on a computer language I created...and use to this day. Someone complained it was an advertisement. I don't know who wrote the article. I did not. But some pest like you got it taken down. So be it. The first guy made Wikipedia better. The complainer and the remover did not. And of course the censors of YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter are not doing the world any favors either.

Re: Talk:democracy, I didn't go look but I must have made a comment that "democracy doesn't work with more than 50 people involved. Any more and it is just an inefficient, expensive, and unworkable "least ugly" contest". If that's your complaint, then add a "talk" comment giving one single instance where that doesn't prove to be the case. WithGLEE (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding trade creating money. That is partially true. Governments and banks create money in the sense that create credit and other financial instruments. As well as a medium of exchange , money can also be defined as being a store of value and unit of account. Jonpatterns (talk) 16:48, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You've learned your lessons well. But they're nonsense. There is absolutely no need to have money-changers or the governments they institute involved in a "real money process" at all. That's a con that we have had to live with for about 500 years. You don't have to look very deep to realize "nothing" they do can happen without traders (like you and me) involved.

Here's a test I like to use to test legitimacy:

(1) Assume a proposed alternative is in fact in practice.

(2) Present the existing practice and try to sell it against the proposed alternative.

It removes the tendency for an existing inferior process to pull rank on a superior alternative.

Read this link: https://moneydelusions.com/wp/2017/07/30/what-is-money/

Then assume the process described there (and its proof) is the one we have actually been using for 500 years. Next, take what you know that led you to make your comment (e.g. Regarding trade creating money) and the caveats. Try to sell them against the process described in the link.

If you can do it successfully, I have a bridge I'm trying to sell. You might have just the skills needed to do it.

And yes, I know the Wikipedia "talk" facility is not the place for debate. But no alternative exists that I know of. If you know of one, please advise. WithGLEE (talk) 21:10, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Doug Weller talk 07:52, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So let's try again:

"And yes, I know the Wikipedia "talk" facility is not the place for debate. But no alternative exists that I know of. If you know of one, please advise."

Wikipedia has been co-opted, as is everything that opens the door to regulation. Some of us aren't alright with that. Wikipedia is still better than any other encyclopedia "pretended" to be. We can see history and facts actually being lied about and revised in real time here. We can see busy bodies pulling rank in real time here.

I contribute to Wikipedia regularly. I hope some of that money goes towards eradicating the obvious nonsense, collusion, coercion, and rank pulling that becomes more evident here by the day. WithGLEE (talk) 07:49, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]