User talk:Javalizard

Please don't add names without citations to the List of people believed to have been affected by bipolar disorder. If you just want to suggest them, do so on the discussion page for the article. If you want to add a name, first find a good source citation--preferably a book or a magazine article, but a reliable website will do--that says that the person is or was bipolar. Then put the name in the list together with the citation. Look at how the other entries in the list to see how this was done.

By the way, citation can't just be some other list somewhere unless it gives sources, in which case you can copy the source they give. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC) (Moved by Superm401 | Talk 06:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

While an individual Reserve Bank could be argued to be "privately owned" (the case you cite only has to do with the Federal Tort Claims Act), the Federal Reserve System is not. The Federal Reserve Board is not privately owned in any way, shape, or form. In addition, the individual Reserve Banks have a third of their directors appointed by a governmental agency, which also has broad authority for directing the Reserve Banks' operations. As such, describing them as "privately owned" is an oversimplification. -Rrius (talk) 19:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article already discusses the very case you mentioned, including this quote from the case: "The Reserve Banks have properly been held to be federal instrumentalities for some purposes." The article also says,

So, once again, before trying to add your material again, please take it to the talk page. -Rrius (talk) 19:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Javalizard. You have new messages at Mr. Stradivarius's talk page.
Message added 10:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

If sources don't support what you want to say, consider finding a different way to say it, instead of hitting "revert". bobrayner (talk) 05:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've got to be kidding me. Did you even LOOK at the source I added? It TOTALLY supports the ENTIRE section. I suggest you read it and stop editwarring my posts Javalizard (talk) 05:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That source says "Thus through stage after stage of expansion, "money" can grow to a total of 10 times the new reserves supplied to the banking system"

You said that, through stage after stage, money can grow 4194304 times. 10 ≠ 4194304.

bobrayner (talk) 06:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a short time for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule at Money creation. 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 would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. KrakatoaKatie 06:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding your speculation to Money creation. If you don't have consensus, try to discuss on the talkpage. The sources do not support your claims; creating your own geometrical series in a spreadsheet - which gives radically different numbers to what sources say - is original research. bobrayner (talk) 02:08, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are editwarring because you believe the reserve rate and reserve ratio are one in the same. Stating the facts that they are unrelated is not original research despite going against what you believe. In fact, you seem so adamant about how the reserve rate and reserve ratio are one in the same, please write exactly that the relending and then cite it. I've looked and looked without finding anything that specifically states the reserve rate and reserve ratio are the same thing. In fact, last I recall, rate had four letters and ratio had five. That would make them distinct. I have been citing sources appropriately for all my information. Once again, iterative math is not original research. The equations are on the same page. How everything works out is described to a T. So please, stop editwarring with me as my information is proper, cited, and not original research. Javalizard (talk) 04:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not revert to your contentious version against the clear consensus of several other editors. Doing so is edit warring and against policy. Slow edit warring without technically breaking WP:3RR is still edit warring, and you can be blocked for doing so. Continually doing so even after being blocked, will lead to your being banned from editing Wikipedia. LK (talk) 04:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to remind you that it is considered disruptive to continually revert to your prefered version against the clear consensus of other editors on the page (such as here); and that doing so can lead to editing priveledges being revoked. Can I suggest editing at some other topics instead of money multiplier and money creation, as your understanding of these matters seem at variance with mainstream academic thought. LK (talk) 02:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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) 13:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]