Talk:Energy accounting

Archives

Incorrect criticisms

I'm going to remove this from the Article, because Technocrats do not argue this, and thus the opposition view is pointless.

"The technocrats would agree that, economically, every person would be equal. In this way, they share some communist ideals, but technocrats argue that the post-cold war era has given the term Communism a negative connotation. They say that communism and capitalism are both systems evolved from scarcity, and that mankind has never attempted to implement a system based on abundance. An opponent of technocracy might counter-argue that it is not post-cold war capitalists who have given communism a bad name, but rather communism's own dismal track record which has ruined its credibility as an economic system."

I will attempt to restate it somehow. --Hibernian 23:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is so poorly written that my initial edits on the top have helped (skip sievert 17:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

This article needs to be renamed. Energy Accounting.(skip sievert 04:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Rewrite proposed

[edit]

I am suggesting a complete rewrite for this article.

There are no references
It can be split into clearer sections
The title may possibly be misleading
The subject itself is difficult to understand, yet the bulk of the article is criticisms
Pictures of proposed energy certificates/cards are available

I am posting this here first, because I believe that a rewrite may turn the page into yet another Technocracy edit war. Opinions? --77siddhartha 08:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don`t think it will. A correct title is the main thing wrong here, and then just some good editing and thoughtfulness. The word Energy Certificate should be used here with a subtitle of Energy Accounting perhaps also. Go ahead and start the rewrite. (skip sievert 23:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Okay, excellent. Can we begin with a list of sources to use that we can somewhat agree to? The Study Course is a great place to start as is the TTSD as it is expanded upon there a bit. I know there is also an official pamphlet. Anything else? I have heard of others suggesting the use of energy accounting outside of technocracy circles, so perhaps there are supporting sources for the general idea itself. --77siddhartha 02:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The term 'credit'

[edit]

Sidd, someone here is continuing to put up the concept of 'energy credits' I think both you and I have determined from official literature that that term is a misnomer. There are not energy credits or debits in Technocracy. One would have to follow the other, and they do not. That info mostly came from the link I have taken down to Kolzenes site. It uses that term. You have noticed that it is not used elsewhere, except perhaps in the TTCD material I don`t know. That should never be used here or elsewhere. The TTCD. It is controversial. Many hard core Technocrats have rejected it, and it has created a division in the movement that is dramatic. This method records the Energy used to produce and distribute goods and services consumed by citizens in a Technate. Energy certificates unlike money are used in a Technate for accounting purposes only. Unlike money or currencies, units of energy can not be saved or earned, and will be distributed evenly among a populace. The number of units given to each citizen would be calculated by determining the total productive capacity of the technate and dividing it equally, after basic costs of running the infrastructure are considered. In energy accounting the Technate would use information of natural resources, industrial capacity and citizen’s consuming habits to determine how much of any good or service is being consumed by the populace, so that it would balance production with consumption. The use of 'ENERGY CREDITS' is not described in the design of the Technate The energy certificate is an energy accounting system only. There is no such use of it as a CREDIT. If one has credit, then Q must follow P and thus one must also have DEBIT. The energy certificate does NOT replace Money. It has NO VALUE at all. It can not be saved, Hoarded, or traded. Its only use in the Technate is as an energy accounting system and production and distribution accounting of all goods and service produced. The mere attachment to the Energy Certificate to Credit, debt, or money i.e. medium of exchange is totally erroneous and false. PERIOD! This Technocratic system is referred to as Energy Accounting using Energy certificates. Technocrats point out that energy accounting is not rationing; it is a way to distribute an abundance and track demand. Everyone would receive an equal amount of energy certificates which would far exceed the ability of the consumer to use. Any thing short of that is a Price System. With the name change now to energy accounting, and if the term 'energy credits' is not used here again, its not looking too bad.(skip sievert 22:55, 18 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Personally, I don't care, whatever is clearest. I don't think that the term 'credit' is misleading, but I agree that it is not in the TSC or TTSD (except it is in the TTSD glossary, I think). I thought the whole concept was that you were allocated a certain amount of energy certificates/coupons/stamps/cheques/cards/tokens/beads/whatever and that was your 'quota' for the period. I think that in modern times, you simply get a card, like a credit card or those cards that I put into the laundry machine, and that card is linked to a database that simply keeps track of how much you consume. You are still allocated a quota, and the card would simply credit or debit that quota. Remember, a credit is only a number that appears on the right side of a balance sheet and a debit appears on the left side. If you are given a quota of energy units, it makes sense that you would like to balance out that quota somehow to determine how much you actually used. This was the goal too -- to find out how much you actually consume and then modify production and distribution accordingly. Credits and debits just refer to the placement of numbers in a particular column, I don't really see where the connection with value or money is. Regardless, I don't care which term is used, just as long as it can be explained clearly. --77siddhartha 00:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I will restate though that this distinction is very important, and that energy certificates or energy accounting are not analogous to money. (skip sievert 00:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Ross Murphy, Could you give a few examples

[edit]

Because I do not see that you are right about your statement in your edit. In fact mainstream Technocracy does not use the term 'energy credits'.

"(Reverting, this version, adds nothing of value, and as stated before, Energy Credits are a perfectly legitimate term, used in Tech Inc. documents and commonly used by Technocrats)"

I think you are way off base in your use of the term energy credits. In fact I know you are. The term used is energy certificates. An energy credit is a misnomer in Technocracy of the first order. So how do you justify your use of the term in this article over and over ? (skip sievert 04:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Not this again, Skip, you and I both know that energy credit is both an officially and commonly used term. It's used extensively in the TTCD and Tech Inc. Website, and is commonly used by Technocrats. I've already explained this before of-course, and it was talked about exhaustively on the Technocracy movement talk page. If you don't like it, fine, you don't have to, but you can't go changing the article to suit your views. --Hibernian 14:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An example from the NET site why the term energy credits is a misnomer and is not used in Technocracy concepts or descriptions.

[edit]

Quote Enrique Lescure, NET:

" The usership right is a part of the social contract which is the technate. It is physically manifested through an energy certifikate. The available capacity is divided into energy units, which could also be called energy credits although it might be misleading. Why? Because the units, since they most correspond to the available consumption capacity in the technate during a given time period (minus of course usage during said period), would not be possible to save over that period. Instead, the certifikate will be reloaded with a new share more corresponding to the new total production capacity of the technate." http://en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_jd-wp&Itemid=93&p=7 Network of European Technocrats

I am going to site more examples also from other sources, but I thought it would be interesting to give the NET site, one that I have endorsed, just as an example how energy credits is a misnomer.(skip sievert 02:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Unexplained edit by Hibernian in energy accounting (Ross Murphy)on his insertion of 'energy credit' concept link to TechCa.

[edit]

An example of Hibernian referring to a term that does not exist in Technocracy circles, except on a website that was referred to as not a good source in and of itself by the editor Wafulz on Technocracy movement. The deleted material leading from the deleted link was written by Kolzene, and Hibernian is a key player on said website. This self generated, (a wiki editor produced it and it is promoted by another wiki editor)and non connected concept, has no bearing in Technocracy related material. If the TechCa site has not been allowed to present original conclusions on Technocracy movement site, why then here ? Could you monitor this situation Wafulz ? (skip sievert 14:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Hibernian recreates the link again to TechCa despite instructions that all ideas should be discussed on this talk page, and all ideas need to meet the strict concepts of wikipedia. Hibernian has not offered any defense of repeated edits concerning the false term energy credits.(skip sievert)

In fact Skip, I have offered a defence of the term, I offered it above, and I offered it WEEKS AGO, on the Technocracy Talk page. If you really want me to direct you to a particular citation then check the TTCD here [1], page 68. --Hibernian 15:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The TTCD is a document that was partially written by an editor here. It is not a reliable source. I read the offered piece above and while it talks about energy certificates, it does not talk about 'credit' except that it is a term that applies to money and not Technocracy concepts. Here is an accurate description of energy certificates, and this is the type of information which should be used in the article. Also it has been brought up that the particular document cited above was edited by an editor here (Kolzene) and is not considered valid by many present and former Technocrats. http://www.technocracy.org/Archives/The%20Energy%20Certificate-r.htm It is suggested that the link be removed to TechCa, and not used again for reference here in regard to Energy Credits. It is not needed, and the Technocracy Incorporated page archive covers that material, and it is perhaps a tool to drive traffic to a site, instead of an information tool, as to the subject at hand. (skip sievert 16:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)) The Energy Certificate[reply]

Here is another 3rd party link to energy accounting concepts. http://gloryoftechnocracy.blogspot.com/ Glory Of Technocracy (skip sievert 00:36, 8 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

From what I see, the term "Energy credit" is used in what appears to be an official document from Tech Inc. Is this correct?-Wafulz 02:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is indeed Correct Wafulz. And for further info on this, just check out what I wrote on your talk page. I'll just go and revert the page now. --Hibernian 01:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What document are you referring to ? Here is the document that has been used to explain energy accounting for decades and it has been updated along the way also, it was updated in the 1960`s as it states in its body, and most other references to energy accounting/certificates are spin offs of this one, some done better and some done worse. http://www.technocracy.org/Archives/The%20Energy%20Certificate-r.htm The Energy Certificate -- If you are referring to the TTCD for reasons given ( edited by Kolzene ) that would not be a good document to use here. Also where in it does it talk extensively or about the term 'energy credit' ? As far as I saw it does not. As said energy credit is mostly used as a way to NOT think about energy accounting/energy certificates. I gave a recent statement by NET even why it is not an appropriate term, but in the context offered by past edits here, a misleading term http://en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_jd-wp&Itemid=93&p=7 Network of European Technocrats. Although this term is used extensively on the TechCa website, that, as you have pointed out is not a good source. While it is possible if someone looks very hard to see a term like energy credit used it has not been cited by example of such here at all. The overwhelming discussion and explanation of energy accounting and energy certificates explanations do no use the term energy credits, usually except as a reference for what it is not. The term 'credit' is a banking money term, and thus confusing in a description of Technocracy. Technocracy does not use money. With the term credit also follows the term debit. They are counter points that exist together. Therefore misleading in the sense of presenting the article as to being understandable.(skip sievert 17:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

An excerpt from the essay above from Technocracy Incorporated, which has been updated from the 1960`s time period from the original 1930`s article, and again the gold standard of explanation of the term energy accounting/energy certificates.

"There might be much said in disposing of Major Douglas' Social Credit theory, Fischer's commodity dollar, Soddy's treatment of monetary structure, and other such schemes. In theory they differ, but in application they all deal in evaluation and therefore must be declared inapplicable in an era of abundance where there are no values. It did not happen that Soddy, an outstanding scientist, came remarkably close to the projection of the unique civilization required in an era of abundance--but ere too late he remembered that he was an English gentleman, inescapably charged with the preservation of all that for which Oxonian tradition stands.

The energy certificate furnishes the molecular mass with a medium whereby it presents its mandate unequivocally and continually to the administrative mechanism, without representation, delegation, referendum, or any other device of previous social administration.

The Energy certificate is the only instrument of distribution which can be used in this Continent's emerging era of abundance.

There can be no era of abundance without a New America.

The energy certificate will be the instrument of distribution in the New America.

Footnote: This description must not be taken to represent the Energy Certificate as it will appear in a Technate. When the Technate is installed the most modern data processing extant at that time will be used." : end quote from 'Energy Accounting document. (skip sievert 17:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I'm confused Skip- why does the TTCD not count as an official source? From what I see, it's hosted on Tech Inc's website, and it is officially endorsed by Tech Inc.-Wafulz 12:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read what I said on your talk page Wafulz, for the reasons for all this. The TTCD is an official document and Tech Inc. does indeed endorse and offer it. Skip's opinions on it are entirely his own personal bias. --Hibernian 13:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have stated my reasons. I request the help of another admin. editor to over see this page, and thought that the purpose here is to present information that is not colored by wiki editors and their edits. The TTCD was edited by Kolzene another editor here, and Hibernian is his chief poster on a diss blog as you have described blogs in the past wafulz http://www.technocracy.ca/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=21497&POSTNUKESID=a75b01cf42e4b110f2eef44e041f5cc1 Technocracy.ca :: Advocating control of technology, not people. and in general is viewed as discredited information. I also represent CHQ 44.94 -93.29 which is just as official a site as TechInc Washington. Both are legal corporations. Also none of my many issues are being addressed here, and I state again that wafulz is personally involved in this article and biased as is the case with Technocracy movement also. Why is the link to TechCa put up with redundant information on energy accounting as energy credits, when linked info. here already explains it ?, and why is the TTCD link a separate link on both pages when it is already featured on the Techinc Washington home page ? I have a paper copy of the original TTCD, and it does not contain the tagged on concept of Energy Credits on the end of it. That information was inserted several years ago, when wiki editor Kolzene revamped the file. (skip sievert 14:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

You didn't answer my question. If the TTCD is fully endorsed by Tech Inc and hosted by Tech Inc and overseen by Tech Inc, it doesn't matter who writes it- it becomes their official work at that point. From what you have told me, you dislike it because it is an update and not the original document. Just because it is written by someone you dislike does not mean the article is not legitimate.-Wafulz 14:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It really is not a matter of me liking or disliking anyone. That is something that I do not care to get into, it is a projection by Hibernian that for some reason you are echoing. I consider it provocative for you to echo his thoughts. This document may help to explain how energy credits somehow are misconstrued as energy certificates. My issues other than the mentioned ones are not being addresed, such as the link to TechCa here, and the redundant links on both articles of the TTCD. Also it is my understanding that a recent edit of material by a wiki editor, that is being promoted here is not really appropriate, and the wealth of other information that does not use the concept in question is overwhelming such as this http://www.technocracy.org/technocrat/The%20Energy%20Distribution%20reduced.pdf The Energy Distribution reduced.pdf (application/pdf Object) Really my only interest here is presenting the most accurate, and least conflicting information on the subject which will not confuse or obscure this issue (skip sievert 15:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Is this starting to feel like Groundhog day to anyone else?

Firstly, yes the TTCD is an official, legitimate, authorised and Authoritative document, no matter what Skip's or anyone else’s opinions are. End of discussion on that.

Ok now we have Skip changing it to Energy Units, that's not necessarily a bad term for it, but again I don't think that's very commonly used or easily understood.

Wafulz, why on Earth have you removed all the links to Tech.ca? Firstly Skip only objected to one of the links, the other one was written in 1955. Secondly, why are you apparently falling for Skip's baloney? Surely you realize by now that this has all be about Skip's personal animosities from day one.

Ugh, anyway, there may be a way to solve this. It is of-course possible to rewrite the article to say energy accounting (or something different entirely) where it currently says Credit, Certificate, Unit, etc. We could also attempt to explain the history of the various terms in the article. Though of-course by now I simply don't believe that Skip has any credibility to be unbiased enough to do this (Despite Skip's attempt to present himself as being only interested in accuracy, heh yeah right). --Hibernian 23:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I protest your demeaning attitude Hibernian and note that you rely on personal insult to try to make your points. Both links obviously did not belong there in the first place, as the information is available on the Techinc Washington site free of 3rd party hosting by TechCa. The TTCD is a edited document by a current editor here. That means it is self published info. and I think that may be a no no. Any way with all the links I have provided for really good and classic info such as http://www.technocracy.org/technocrat/The%20Energy%20Distribution%20reduced.pdf The Energy Distribution reduced.pdf (application/pdf Object) or http://www.technocracy.org/Archives/The%20Energy%20Certificate-r.htm The Energy Certificate, the TTCD edited by Kolzene, and as said many times, a bone of contention among many current and former members, is just not worth linking. Mostly it is recycled info. from the articles I am giving here. The term units is used very often in Technocracy although it is not a descriptive as certificates. If any thing is a substitute for certificates, units is really the very best choice, although both can be used accurately. The articles above use the term. It does not have a monetary meaning, which is confusing to understanding that Technocracy is not a 'value' based system as money is. I will say again that a separate listing of the TTCD is not appropriate on either the Technocracy movement page, or the energy accounting page, as any one interested in that document will find it on Techinc Washington`s website, along with the rest of their archived articles. It is a booklet, or information brief also, as I am the Price System was when it was originally published. So your deleting the I am the Price System article was not appropriate. It is a famous and noteworthy Technocracy writing. To sum up here energy accounting/energy certificates is the main stream representation of the concept in concern here. Another way it is sometimes said is the term 'units' - rarely to ever is it termed 'energy credits'. When a section of this article uses that term over and over perhaps 6 or 7 times in a paragraph of information, it is not only confusing, but the actual concept of what is talked about in relation to the idea of what it really is, is lost in a confusion of connecting those ideas with credit and debit.(skip sievert 02:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

So lets compromise. I left one reference of energy credits in bold even though I think it is not really appropriate. The term 'units' is used often and is not controversial. I rewrote a tiny amount for clarity also at the bottom of the first part of the article. People in a Technate do not have a blank check to get what ever. It also is based on resource availability, and I have tried to add that on here.

Also I have included only the TechInc links for information on energy accounting. (skip sievert 02:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Ok I've preformed a rewrite. I've removed the terms Credits, Certificates, Units, etc, from most of the article, replacing them with "Accounting" or just "Energy". I trust this will be an acceptable version? As for the links I've replaced the Tech.ca link to this article[2], because it was available on the official site. However I have also put back this article [3] from Tech.ca (the one Wafulz removed) as it was written in 1955 and does not seem to be available elsewhere. I've kept, but adapted some of Skip's edits. And I think that's about it. --Hibernian 17:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements made in article

[edit]

This article which was slated for a rewrite, and the Technocracy movement article being reviewed still need improvements. Especially the Technocracy movement article.

The article in question from 1955 is widely available in many places, an example of another place it is available is http://technocracy-incorporated.wikispaces.com/ technocracy-incorporated » home - and I could list other multiple places also, at least three more from other sources. A version of it also is here , http://www.technocracyvan.ca/Articles/ScientificTechnologicalDesign.html TechnocracyVan , which may not be a great site in general, but does have pretty much good information. According to TechInc Washington, they approved the material there. Also no doubt it is available from Techinc, and probably in the archive section, which I have not gone through completely to check for it. Again the former reason of Wafulz for dropping links to TechCa was that it is not considered a 'good source' in general, although it does contain some accurate information as many other sites do also. I think that it is pretty hard to go wrong in just referring back to TechInc where much of this information on energy accounting is redundantly offered in information briefs and essays that span many decades, with most of the information repeated mainly in the same way. TechCa is not a unique source of this material.

Part of the basis of Technocracy from the beginning, has been an intense ecological protection connection to the resource base, and this section should make that clear also. Part of the concept energy accounting is based on maintaining the resource base. That concept should be worked into this section. Hubbert wrote extensively about protecting and not wasting the resource base. (skip sievert 01:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The TechCa site was noted as not being a reliable source, by an admin editor previously. Also I have noted many examples above, where this short description is available, including another site that is listed as an auxiliary site to the official TechInc site, this site, http://www.technocracyvan.ca/Articles/ScientificTechnologicalDesign.html

TechnocracyVan. So despite this being repetitive information, that is covered far better with the links already provided now, this information could be added by the addition of the TechVanCa site. The edited 'out' link repeatedly reinserted by two active editors on TechCa, (Ross Murphy,Bill DesJardin), with self generated information, framed around the actual cited material, could be construed as a device to drive blogging or forum traffic to itself, instead of a pure information link. Also the information as framed by TechCa is not really the originally formatted information with the intro and outro aspect it has on the deleted link. (skip sievert 17:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Hmm, no I don't see where it that site it reproduces that document, perhaps you could point it out to me? As I said, Wafulz did not say that all material from Tech.ca was unacceptable, and he specifically stated that if a link from there is legitimate and useful and cannot be found anywhere else, then it can be linked to. That's exactly what I'm doing in this case. So I will continue to revert your deletion, unless you can show the article is available on one of the official Technocracy sites (and no I don't include sites created by you to be in that category). Do not arbitrarily delete it again, and do not continue to try to delete the TTCD or other such useful links from the main article. It has been established that they can and will be included, you already lost that argument, a long time ago. --Hibernian 00:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

" Wafulz did not say that all material from Tech.ca was unacceptable," Hibernian.

Apparently wafulz did not think this a worthy link and I agree. In fact.

I have pointed out where the article is available above. The TTCD is available at the link that already exists to the TechInc site, therefore it is redundant. TechCa has been pointed out as not a good source. This link is dropped as it is repetitive info. from what is already available and already available in multiple sites. http://people.tribe.net/b0455ee2-dab0-4170-8de2-aad4bf963f74/blog My Blog - tribe.net here is another site, and there are multiple others. Here is another, http://technocracy-incorporated.wikispaces.com/ technocracy-incorporated » home and another http://technocracynow.blogspot.com/ Technocracy - The Design of the North American Technate. Also the fact that you your self are an administrator on that site that answers questions, and runs the site would seem to be a case of promoting a special interest. Your name is Icarus, on that site. It would seem to be an attempt to drive traffic to that site, for less than information only reasons. http://www.technocracy.ca/ Technocracy.ca :: Also that site could be interpreted as what has been referred to as a 'diss' blog previously by an editor. (skip sievert 02:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

What did I just say? I, nor anyone else, is interested in hearing about your Websites, stop posting them. Again, I completely reject what you've said above, and stick to my previous reasons, and will be reverting you. --Hibernian 14:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest guidelines. It violates wiki neutrality guidelines for a person with close ties to an issue to contribute material in a self generated context, concerned with driving readers to a chat or blog site such as http://www.technocracy.ca/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=21497&POSTNUKESID=a75b01cf42e4b110f2eef44e041f5cc1 Technocracy.ca :: Advocating control of technology, not people. It has been noted by an admin editor as 'not a good source'. Wiki is quickly self correcting, partly so that special interest groups are not able to use it as a vehicle of driving traffic to a special interest, close tie. Since you are one of the admin. on the site above, and 'run it' this is a conflict of interest. A no no. So much information, and excellent information is available on this subject of energy accounting, that it is not useful to post to a questionable source, as TechCa, in this context has been referred to. To much baggage of special interest. Since an editor here is obviously a director there. (skip sievert 02:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Hibernian's edits do not count as a conflict of interest. This is a useful article from 1955, and your (Skip's) motives appear to be a bit skewed: rather than keeping one website from getting more visits, you continually rehost material in order to ensure they have fewer. Someone would also have to go quite a ways in the website to find that thread about you- I can't find it anywhere. Ideally, the links here would be citations rather than plain links, but they don't violate the external link guideline. Be aware that you've already been warned about and blocked for edit-warring Skip.-Wafulz 22:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought other editors were going to be involved in this article, as you have stated your self that you are in to deep, and I assume that means you questioned your objectivity ? I am not edit warring, and I find that you are siding without even getting into the arguments I made on different issues here. Could other editors be brought in to objectively look at the article ? Here is the front end of their site wafulz, and no, someone would not have to "go quite a ways into their site to find a thread about you", as you say. It is on the cover. http://www.technocracy.ca/ Technocracy.ca :: Advocating control of technology, not people. Also I was only restoring the edit you did. You took off that link recently to the TechCa site. (skip sievert 01:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The tech.ca link I removed was different. The thread about you wasn't easy to find (though it might be for others) and it isn't anything damning- it's an argument on a website. Regardless, you seem to have lost your focus on this article: there are less trivial things to worry about than one or two links.-Wafulz 17:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is now established even by Kolzene director of TechCa. that Energy credits is a misnomer.

[edit]

Here is proof positive of that. " Now, RE: Energy Accounting. You are spouting the same semantics that Skip is. Yes, "energy credits" is a somewhat misleading term. However, until the appropriate materials can be rewritten in a more modern context, we are stuck with it. Raging like Skip is against it is in very poor taste and doesn't help anyone. Let me give you a little advice from Technocracy's Operating Instructions #7: Guide for Writers: "Preserve an attitude of cool and detached dignity, without emotionalizing, and without indulgence in personalities." Why is this? Because doing otherwise hurts your credibility. This is why nobody listens to Skip, and why you are getting such bad response here as well. I know that it may seem like it is the fault of others, but you have to take responsibility for your own actions.

If you must know I agree that "credit" is not the best term for it, and should be purged from Technocracy material. But right now it is all the material we have, so until we get enough talented and knowledgeable writers to rewrite everything from scratch, the best thing you can do is simply clarify the discrepancy to those people who are confused by the term " end quote, Kolzene, a wiki editor here, and the administrator of TechCa. I think this sums up the problem of energy credits very well. It makes sense to make this more clear to the public. Here is a link to Bills, (Kolzenes) statement in part 3.http://www.technocracy.ca/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=21497&POSTNUKESID=a75b01cf42e4b110f2eef44e041f5cc1 Technocracy.ca :: Advocating control of technology, not people. (skip sievert 02:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Why are you discussing this in two separate places? You posted the exact same thing in the Technocracy Movement Talk Page. My response to this can be found there. --Kolzene 13:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, as much as I hate to continue a split discussion, what I have to say is more relevant here. Skip's reason for taking out the term "credit" was based on things I said on another web page. In those things I never agreed that changing anything on Wikipedia was appropriate (see the Talk Page for Technocracy Movement for my reply to that). If anything, I would be for the removal of (or significant change in reference to) the term "certificate". The reason is that the article states that "The units of this accounting system would be known as Energy Credits, Energy Certificates, or simply Energy Units." This is inaccurate. The units themselves would be the same as any other scientific unit for the measure of energy (e.g. ergs, joules, kilowatt-hours, etc.). The "Energy Certificate" was merely a device to be used in the accounting system, easily replaceable by anything superior (such as debit-style cards or microchips). This is an important distinction and should be made clear in the article. However, like I said in the other Talk Page, until Technocracy Inc. changes its publications and nomenclature, the purpose of this article to to reflect what they themselves are proposing, not to correct them by removing the term "credit". As for his removal of the link to the Energy Accounting Information Brief on technocracy.ca, that was not explained by him, and as it is a useful article on the matter, it should remain. Even if Skip decides to use his standard argument that everything on technocracy.ca is useless and/or misleading, then I would ask why he is using a post I wrote there as his "proof positive" to support his argument? --Kolzene 13:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terms

[edit]

Simple really. Both Net and TechCa, sites, that I do not endorse, has this corrected information NOW. You yourself have said and published that the term credit is misleading, and confusing. Since the Technocracy Study Course, and most all related information concerning Technocracy from all most all sources for decades has used the term energy certificates to explain how things are quantified in Energy Accounting in regard to Kilowatts,Joules etc, it just makes sense to use that term. It is the most simple and most redundantly used term in most of the literature. I am trying to keep it simple here. http://www.technocracy.org/Archives/The%20Energy%20Certificate-r.htm

(skip sievert 17:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Energy Accounting reference point

[edit]

http://www.technocracy.org/Archives/The%20Energy%20Certificate-r.htm The Energy Certificate an original copy and a reedited copy, http://docs.google.com/View?docid=dfx7rfr2_93dqt642 The Energy Certificate/Energy Accounting.Technocracy system. The predominent terminology as to energy certificate energy accounting. Lets keep it simple, and easy to understand. Energy Certificate is the term that is most easily understandable and the one that is used in most of the literature. (skip sievert 21:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

An editor here removes links to the originators of the concept of Energy accounting

[edit]

How is it that Ross Murphy or Hibernian continues to take down the link to Willard Gibbs and also to the group that originated the concept and published the concept of Energy Accounting , Technocracy Incorporated.

It could be suspected that user may be trying to filter people into a commercial site run by Network of European Technocrats. Hibernian is a member of that site and a proponent of that site which is a commercial site. http://en.technocracynet.eu/index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=85&Itemid=65 Network of European Technocrats - Ross Murphy

In appearance directing people to NET and publishing info that leads to them is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. skip sievert (talk) 16:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

added reference link

[edit]

To the Fezer essay to this article... http://www.technocracy.org/Archives/The%20Energy%20Certificate-r.htm The Energy Certificate] An article on Energy Accounting as proposed by Technocracy Inc. This article had zero references before. Please add other citations and references. skip sievert (talk) 15:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added two more reference citations to article. skip sievert (talk) 15:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unbalanced and confusing article

[edit]

I find this article unbalanced and confusing, and have tagged it accordingly. If one googles on energy accounting, it seems to be a general concept (compare with environmental accounting), not just a concept within the school of Technocracy Incorporated. Being a nonexpert in this area, it's really confusing to read this article. Is it a general concept which have acceptance among academics, or is it just part of the ideology of Tech. Inc? If it is the former, then this article talks way too much about technates. Especially, the beginning paragraph needs to be changed. Energy accounting in the context of Tech. Inc. maybe could have it's own article, e.g. Energy accounting (concept within Technocracy Incorporated) or something similar. Mårten Berglund (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing the tag. TechInc originated the term. It is also a mainstream term which is represented in the article http://telstar.ote.cmu.edu/environ/m3/s3/05account.shtml - both the TechInc and the mainstream views are linked in the article which documents TechIncs... involvement and the modern aspects of thermoeconomics or biophysical economics. http://www.eoearth.org/article/Net_energy_analysis .. this may be a good starting point if you wish to understand some of these issues more in depth... and also this http://ecen.com/eee9/ecoterme.htm - Please read this material. I hope it explains to you the subject... its historical roots... and the present aspects of this in energy economics. Thanks. skip sievert (talk) 03:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the links, interesting indeed (although the last one, ecen.com, was password protected). Do you have a reference stating that TechInc originated the term?

Just to make it clear: TechInc's ideas seems very interesting to me, and maybe I'll agree on their agenda after I've acquainted myself with their ideas. But I believe that WP should be a neutral project, and now this article seems to be an advertisement for TechInc. Also, the folks who have been editing this article, seems to be strong advocates of TechInc. I wonder if all this is compatible with WP guidelines as for instance this? Also, the links you gave me didn't any of them talk about TechInc, so why does this WP article? Mårten Berglund (talk) 14:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read this thoroughly for perspective on the issues you mention http://www.eoearth.org/article/Biophysical_economics .. this mentions TechInc... and its connection and context with some of these ideas. Also read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth,_Virtual_Wealth_and_Debt for a context of time and place. This is probably one of the earliest documents that explains what energy accounting is in a context of the discussion here... and a precedent document from TechInc... published shortly after their Technocracy Study Course book... http://www.technocracy.org/Archives/The%20Energy%20Certificate-r.htm Not sure if it is your computer but this file opens for me no problem... http://ecen.com/eee9/ecoterme.htm - it is an economics professor explaining some ideas of physics and energy in the context of using it as an accounting system for society... and it talks in an historical way about TechInc... which actually started in 1918 as to research http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_Alliance -- As far as an agenda... there is none in the article. It is just information. There may have been some non neutral editing going on here in the past... but the article is receiving a lot of oversight now... for just what you are perhaps saying... and the article currently is only information presentation... it is not jazzed up or down to my knowledge.. so if you are thinking of something specifically that others are missing here please be specific. Read this article for more information as to notability of this group and their past Technocracy Incorporated. My opinion is that the article is not unbalanced and it is not confusing. It actually seems like just plain information discussing the topic. If you want to get into depth for more understanding of this group... here is another piece of information that may explain the historical aspects of the concept of energy accounting... the time and place etc. - http://www.technocracy.org/Archives/History%20&%20Purpose-r.htm -- skip sievert (talk) 23:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link to the Encyclopedia of Earth - their website seems to be a most valuable resource. The password protected page was now available again - maybe it was a temporary problem when I tried earlier.

However, none of the links above is saying anything about who invented the term "energy accounting". I would like to have an independent reference stating that TechInc was the entity that coined the term, and that the term didn't exist before. Could you give me that? Mårten Berglund (talk) 00:17, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the article beginning again... Energy Accounting is the hypothetical system of distribution, proposed by Technocracy Incorporated in the Technocracy Study Course, which would record the energy used to produce and distribute goods and services consumed by citizens in a Technate. Scientists have written and speculated on different aspects of energy accounting. Many variations of energy accounting are in use now, as this issue relates to current (price system) economics directly, as well as projected models in possible Non-market economics systems.

I would like to have an independent reference stating that TechInc was the entity that coined the term, and that the term didn't exist before.

Sorry... but the article does not claim that is the case. Your criteria is unreasonable. There are multiple historic references to the time and place of this concept http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy_%28bureaucratic%29

The article makes no claim on inventing this general term used in physics... There is even a disclaimer after the first sentence. It explains this to be a general term. This page explains the difference between monetizing energy accounting... it is a disambiguation page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accounting - The general term did not exist before the Technocracy Study Course to my knowledge, but that is not really an issue here. skip sievert (talk) 04:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt energy accounting can be described in different ways. In thermodynamics, the term thermodynamic free energy refers to the amount of work that can be extracted from a system, and is helpful in engineering applications. It is a subtraction of the entropy of a system multiplied by a reference temperature (giving the "unusable energy") from the total energy, yielding a thermodynamic state function which represents the "useful energy".

The article documents the use of term from TechInc... which popularized this term. It also mentions the other ways the term is used and came about in a historical context. skip sievert (talk) 04:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry... but the article does not claim that is the case. Yes, it does. The first sentence in the article you cited above, claims just that: "EA is the ... system ... proposed by TechInc ..."
The article documents the use of term from TechInc... That's exactly my point, that the article documents the use of the term from TechInc. A WP article should document a term from a WP:NPOV, not from a specific POV. Now the article has a heavy bias towards TechInc's use of the term. The term according to TechInc, could be (and is) described in the article about TechInc, but it is questionable whether the term in TechInc's use, comply with WP:NOTABLE to have it's own article. Maybe as part of a general article about energy accounting.
it is a disambiguation page (Energy accounting). Now this starts to be even more confusing. Why do we have a disambiguation page with almost the same name? If it's not against WP:NAME it's at least against common sense. Furthermore, that disambiguation page doesn't link to any page dealing with monetization of energy (just to the separate concepts monetization and energy).
We have to tag this page, and then perhaps get some assistance with this issue, since we disagree of how the article should be put. Please don't remove the tag, due to WP:NPOVD. EDIT: I've also tagged this talk page, so it becomes part of the Energy project on WP, and so someone there could check this article.
Suggestions:
- Merge the article Energy accounting to this article (Energy Accounting). Thereafter, rename Energy Accounting to Energy accounting according to WP:CAPS.
- Explain the concept of energy accounting in a general manner. Create a section "Other uses of the term" or something similar, where TechInc's use of the term can be described.

Mårten Berglund (talk) 00:35, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty obviously you are grinding an ax here. I addressed your points previously. The article is neutral... no one else has made a complaint about it and many eyes are following it. If you have a point to make edit the article. Your tag seem inappropriate.

Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort. skip sievert (talk) 02:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Marten's general comment that the article is "unbalanced and confusing". Please let him put tags in place which reflect this. This is the normal process on WP, and by no means a "last resort". Taking an article to WP:AfD is a last resort. Maybe if some improvements are made to this article we can avoid that. Johnfos (talk) 03:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

[edit]

I've had a closer look at the article now. As the tags suggest, there are some problems. Much of the content is either unsourced, or already appears in other articles. For example, this paragraph also appears in Technocracy Incorporated:

Energy economics relating to thermoeconomics, is a broad scientific subject area which includes topics related to supply and use of energy in societies. Thermoeconomists argue that economic systems always involve matter, energy, entropy, and information.[3] Moreover, the aim of many economic activities is to achieve a certain structure. In this manner, thermoeconomics attempts to apply the theories in non-equilibrium thermodynamics, in which structure formations called dissipative structures form, and information theory, in which information entropy is a central construct, to the modeling of economic activities in which the natural flows of energy and materials function to create scarce resources. In thermodynamic terminology, human economic activity may be described as a dissipative system, which flourishes by transforming and exchanging resources, goods, and services.[4] These processes involve complex networks of flows of energy and materials

This paragraph also appears in Thermoeconomics and many other WP articles (see [4]):

In Wealth, Virtual Wealth and Debt (George Allen & Unwin 1926), Frederick Soddy turned his attention to the role of energy in economic systems. He criticized the focus on monetary flows in economics, arguing that “real” wealth was derived from the use of energy to transform materials into physical goods and services. Soddy’s economic writings were largely ignored in his time, but would later be applied to the development of biophysical economics and bioeconomics and also ecological economics in the late 20th century.[8]

There are many duplicated paragraphs. In the circumstances, I suggest that the article be turned into a redirect, pointing to Energy economics. Johnfos (talk) 10:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bad idea. The concept of energy accounting was a product of research between 1918 and 1934 by first the Technical Alliance and then TechInc. Really it is a pity that this subject is too complex for easy understanding. The first thing that Martin said on his arrival here was... Being a nonexpert in this area, it's really confusing to read this article. Is it a general concept which have acceptance among academics, or is it just part of the ideology of Tech. Inc?... so this is the starting off point of the person that tagged the article.

Also obviously some presentation aspects bear repeating in aspects of the context of information, because explanations of descriptions of some data or process's are easily understood that way. Energy economics is part of this... but it should not be directed only into that... there is too much information connected as a separate entity connected to this group. And the divisions in these ideas too complicated for that http://www.eoearth.org/article/Net_energy_analysis ... one area is more connected with market economics... another more connected with biophysical economics... very different aspects... that are a tiny bit connected in environmental economics and a little more connected... but not really in ecological economics. In other words the ideas presented by TechInc are unique... were unique... and are notable. M. King Hubbert was probably the most famous/notable geo-scientist of the 20th. century... and he was the person that wrote information such as this http://www.technocracy.org/man%20hours%20and%20distribution.htm which influenced people around the world http://books.google.com/books?id=d0QExts2z0IC&pg=PA5&lpg=PA5&dq=Albert+Einstein++and+technocracy&source=bl&ots=BE2A7LdW_E&sig=Cio2Za-4nGcy02yo5ilkzvvR_pY&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result and

http://books.google.com/books?id=m_wPpj64GqMC&pg=PA163&lpg=PA163&dq=General+counsel+of+technocratic+party+russia&source=web&ots=nKYC6bXk2Q&sig=1M8sh3W3wtRhZzI9_PkKSiDded8&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result

You probably could read some of the sources and ref/citations before jumping in here. http://www.eoearth.org/article/Biophysical_economics

Excerpt from the above link... The use of energy as a unifying concept for social, political and economic analysis reached a zenith with the technocratic movement in the USA and Canada during the 1930s. Led by the flamboyant and energetic Howard Scott, the Technocracy movement began in 1918 as a group called the Technical Alliance. The Alliance conducted an industrial survey of North America in which economic parameters were measured in energy units rather than dollars. Although the Alliance lasted only a few years, the Depression provided fertile ground for the re-emergence of the technocratic movement which used depressed economic conditions as a rallying point for their call for a complete overhaul of existing economic and political institutions. In 1921, Howard Scott and others formed Technocracy, Inc., and in conjunction with the Industrial Engineering Department at Columbia University, began an empirical analysis of production and employment in North America in energy units. The association with a prestigious university like Columbia combined with Scott’s flamboyant relationship with the press made Technocracy internationally famous.

And http://ecen.com/eee9/ecoterme.htm - For more info.

Improving articles is always a good idea. But weighing in without understanding the subject is probably a bad idea. This may be one of those topics that takes a little more time and understanding to deal with... if people are unfamiliar with connected ideas. skip sievert (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More repetition

[edit]

It doesn't take an expert in the subject area to see that much of the material in this article is already mentioned, word for word, in other WP articles. Here are some more examples:

This paragraph also appears in Thermoeconomics:

Energy Accounting is the hypothetical system of distribution, proposed by Technocracy Incorporated in the Technocracy Study Course, which would record the energy used to produce and distribute goods and services consumed by citizens in a Technate.[1]

This paragraph also appears in Technocracy Incorporated and several other WP articles (see [5]):

Physical scientists and biologists were the first individuals to use energy flows to explain social and economic development. Joseph Henry, an American physicist and first secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, remarked that the "fundamental principle of political economy is that the physical labor of man can only be ameliorated by...the transformation of matter from a crude state to an artificial condition...by expending what is called power or energy."[7]

This paragraph also appears in Thermoeconomics and many other WP articles (see [6]):

Exergy analysis is performed in the field of industrial ecology to use energy more efficiently.[14] The term exergy, was coined by Zoran Rant in 1956, but the concept was developed by J. Willard Gibbs. In recent decades, utilization of exergy has spread outside of physics and engineering to the fields of industrial ecology, ecological economics, systems ecology, and energetics.

This paragraph also appears in Technocracy Incorporated:

The units of the accounting system proposed by Technocracy Incorporated, would be known as Energy Certificates, or Energy Units. Energy accounting would replace money in a Technate, but unlike traditional currencies, energy units could not be saved or earned, only distributed evenly among a populace.[15]

This is clearly an untenable situation. And I suggest again that the article needs to be redirected.

I would also add that this sort of blatant repetition is the type of thing you would expect in advertising material, not an encyclopedia, and that this article and some other articles related to Technocracy Incorporated appear to be largely promotional in nature. Johnfos (talk) 18:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some more repetition

[edit]

This paragraph appears in several other WP articles (see [7]):

Georgescu-Roegen reintroduced into economics, the concept of entropy from thermodynamics (as distinguished from the mechanistic foundation of neoclassical economics drawn from Newtonian physics) and did foundational work which later developed into evolutionary economics. His work contributed significantly to bioeconomics and to ecological economics.[9][10][11][12][13]

Unless anyone objects, I will redirect this article to Energy economics. Johnfos (talk) 20:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I object... that is a bad idea for reasons given. Also you seem now to go from one related technocracy article to another and make nonconstructive tagging and edits. I have the feeling that you do not like this subject, which is notable and carries itself because of its historical aspects. I say this because you are displaying a pattern. Do not redirect the article. skip sievert (talk) 05:16, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I first became aware of this article when you posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Energy#Energy accounting requesting help. Previous to reading this article I had never heard of Technocracy Incorporated or the Technocracy Study Course. I also mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Energy#Energy accounting that I felt it would be useful for people to review articles in Category:Technocracy movement, and that is what I have been doing. No surprise there. If you have another way of dealing with the problems of this article, besides redirecting, please let us know. Johnfos (talk) 05:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell you for sure that approach is not a good one of redirecting the article. As you may have noticed I am improving the article. I added a link which may satisfy another editor here http://www.eoearth.org/article/Net_energy_analysis who was only requesting a well rounded view of the subject, not a redirect Also... please do not go from article to article as you are doing and removing information. By removing information like you did on the Thermoeconomics article you are depriving people of information of the history and connection of the modern term with the past. Really if you have phrasing or language or presentation problems... do not make wholesale edits of removing information. skip sievert (talk) 06:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

Johnfos: For me it's okey if you do a redirect, as long as the term energy accounting is explained in a pedagogic and neutral way in the new article. That's my only purpose of this whole discussion: that the concept of energy accounting is explained in a way that meet WP's quality standards. Whether it is in another article or for itself, doesn't matter so much to me. Mårten Berglund (talk) 02:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skip:
- I've taken due notice of the references you have provided to me, but as I said, I don't think those references address the article's issues (in contrary, several of those references confirmed my notion that energy accounting is a general concept, and not a concept of TechInc primarily - and a WP article should above all describe a concept in a general and neutral manner).
- It's unfair of you saying I'm grinding an ax. The only ax I'm grinding - at least, that's my ambition - is the one of WP:NPOV.
- The first tag I added a week ago, could maybe be said to be a drive-by tagging, but certainly not the tag I added after a week of discussion that didn't take us anywhere closer to consensus.
- Finally, a layman's opinion of how good an article is, could sometimes say more, than an expert's view that easily could be a little bit narrowminded sometimes. WP articles is not for experts, but for ordinary people searching for knowledge. Mårten Berglund (talk) 02:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issues involved here are bigger than your complaints which mostly are made from not understanding some aspects of the subject in my opinion. Also... turning this into a redirect for Energy economics is going to be a problem, it is not appropriate at all. That is not going to be fun to deal with... as the mainstream and heterodox view are in conflict even as to the term. I think you started a real problem here by getting another person going from article to article now... and making tagging and complaints... some good, but most inappropriate and seemingly not connected, and now this person is suggesting a redirect to an article that is built mostly for another purpose. Most of the edit problems are simple to fix. If there is a problem edit the article. That is simple enough. It should be noted again that the mainstream and heterodox points of view of the subject are very directly explained in this article with new material and old such as this http://www.eoearth.org/article/Net_energy_analysis now linked in the article. skip sievert (talk) 05:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see some changes in the article, but... you really have problems to understand my point: You (i.e. the article) are describing energy accounting as if it were a concept owned by TechInc. That's not the case, as your references you've provided me have shown - energy accounting is a general concept, and should be described neutrally from a NPOV. That means that the first sentence in the article is misleading. I won't do any editing, cause I think you wouldn't like them, and you would revert them, just as you revert the dispute tag I put up. That's also a problem: you don't understand that you cannot remove the dispute tag until we agree that the dispute is over - please read WP:NPOVD carefully. As I believe you don't agree on the suggestions from Johnfos as well, I think some assstance from WP:FTN should be relevant, as this issue is about undue weight. Mårten Berglund (talk) 02:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have problems understanding your point. The article is not saying the concept was owned by TechInc... it is said that it was proposed. Please do not personalize the editing with concepts like You (i.e. the article), I did not originate the article, and I do not own it. The article is full of information and links that make it plain about other meanings. Your interpretation of the first sentence is not what the first sentence says. Drive by... or pointless tagging of a stable article is not suggested. If you care to make a request for comment go ahead. That would be the next logical step in a content dispute... which apparently you believe this to be. Last time I checked science ideas are not fringe theory. People like this... M. King Hubbert were not involved in fringe theory. skip sievert (talk) 03:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A reminder

[edit]

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Energy accounting. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Energy accounting at the Reference desk.

Recently an editor made a personal attack here by using this page for something other than the purpose meant for it http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Energy_Accounting&diff=271498736&oldid=271497446. Looking for personal information which is inflammatory defeats the actual purpose of editing here. This is the second type of occurrence like this by the same editor. Making personal attacks can get a person blocked on wikipedia. skip sievert (talk) 04:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked you politely the last couple of days to desist in making personal attacks... and looking from off site or old derogatory information. Since this has not been resolved... I have reported this situation here Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. I am hoping this situation can be resolved without further escalation. Thank you user Johnfos. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User_http:.2F.2Fen.wikipedia.org.2Fwiki.2FUser_talk:Johnfos -skip sievert (talk) 17:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment on neutrality

[edit]

If you are interested in some issue here you could say what it is. Just floating the idea that the article may not be neutral over and over, is not much to go on. The article is full of multiple links to multiple sources that show how the concept has been used historically and how it is used now. Mostly you have not done any edits at all in the article. You have not brought up any specific or even remote complaint of why it is you feel the article is not neutral. The talk page is for that discussion. How is it that you have this concern and are not willing to engage what aspect it is that you are complaining about? Because of that I find this a distraction. Show a phrase or a paragraph or something here to make a case. skip sievert (talk) 00:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Skipsievert! I'm glad that you really have tried to improve the article, and I know for sure that you're doing this in good faith, and I understand that it must be frustrating with this complaining all the time. It's just that the improvements made so far is in my opinion marginal - to be neutral, the article needs to be turned upside down so to say, it needs a rewrite. It's the whole perspective permeating the article that is not neutral in my opinion. I'll try to be constructive now and give you some examples, and other things that has to be done in my opinion:

The first sentence: Energy Accounting is a hypothetical system of distribution, proposed by Technocracy Incorporated in the Technocracy Study Course, which would record the energy used to produce and distribute goods and services consumed by citizens in a Technate. This term has also been used in a general context to describe aspects of energy economics. This makes the reader infer that EA is a concept above all originating from TechInc superior to the general concept of EA. Instead, the first sentence should read something as "EA is a concept within the field of energy economics that deals with ..." Further on, the two first references to this sentence, doesn't confirm what the sentence says: [8] doesn't say anything about TechInc, and [9] doesn't mention the term EA.
Further, I think we should not mention TechInc in the opening paragraphs at all. Actually, everything in the article that is about TechInc's view of EA should be moved to a separate section named e.g. "EA in the Techn Study Course". The first section "EA and balance" should only talk about EA as a general concept.
Sections See also, External Links and References: Too many links to TechInc articles and TechInc web sites.
Rename the article to "Energy accounting" (according to WP:CAPS), and redirect the current article Energy accounting to this one, since the current article Energy accounting doesn't seem meaningful and it's just confusing to have two articles with almost the same name.

Mårten Berglund (talk) 12:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not name the article. I did not start the article. Someone thought the term Energy Accounting was notable in direct relation to the Technical Alliance, and that is why the article leans in that direction. Apparently they also capitalized the term for whatever reason. Your points above seem over extreme. The article has been improved and the distinctions between the different aspects are already noted. Also... to my knowledge the Technical Alliance came up with the term originally. It appears to be used in this context for the first time in history. I may be wrong on this, but I have found no reference for the term outside of the Technical Alliance... until much later in history... the term was probably developed as early as 1918 or 1919, when that research was started.

As to the link above... you apparently did not read it. For that we should reach a consensus about value, by weighting advisedly all the variables. Some idea like that certainly has occurred as soon the Law of Conservation of Energy was established in 1870. I cannot perform a thorough search, but I would suggest a starting point in the writings of Stuart Mill, Spencer and Balfour Stewart. Explicitly, a similar idea occurred to Frederick Soddy in 1922. [This was used as a reference in the Technocracy Study Course.] He wrote that the price of a merchandise reflect, directly or not, the energy invested in its production. (Today, he would say available energy). The same idea was proposed by Howard Scott during the Great Depression of the 30's. And now it surfaces with the ecological movement since the 60's, while emphasizing the erroneous use of planet's resources. An indirect consequence of this idea is the analysis of industrial processes by net energy use, taking into account all the energy involved since the extraction of natural resources and the "primary" energy. This approach is gaining adepts. Thermodynamic and economic optima do not coincide, except in very few cases. Berry et al. have shown that the two optima do coincide in the case of a free market in which the only "scarce" resource is available energy (or utilizable work)etc..

http://ecen.com/eee9/ecoterme.htm

Energy Accounting -- Their term.

``This new system will put into operation a Continental Energy Accounting, utilizing the Energy Distribution Card. Production and distribution will depend on continent-wide statistics expressing the desires of all citizens in their choices of consumable goods and available services. This system will do the following things in a geographical area where sufficiency is certain:

(1) Record on a continuous 24-hour basis the total net conversion of energy for continental plant construction and maintenance, the availability of energy for continental plant construction and maintenance, and the amount of physical resources and services for use by the total population during a given period.

(2) By means of the registration of energy converted and consumed, make possible the best use of equipment and resources (a “balanced load”).

(3) Provide a continuous 24-hour inventory of all production and consumption....etc. etc. etc.....`` http://www.technocracy.org/technocrat/Energy%20Distribution%20Card%20latest.pdf This is a composite of information which was published since the 20's and 30's... last century. skip sievert (talk) 00:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not name the article. I did not start the article. Someone thought the term Energy Accounting was notable in direct relation to the Technical Alliance, and that is why the article leans in that direction. It doesn't matter who started the article. It's the fact that it leans in a certain direction that is the problem, and that's the whole issue here. Articles on WP should not lean in any directions.
Also... to my knowledge the Technical Alliance came up with the term originally. That kind of vague sources ("to my knowledge") are not good enough for WP.
As to the link above... you apparently did not read it. You don't seem aware of how to use references. A reference should confirm what you are saying, and you should be able to read that out from the reference directly, not indirectly. See WP:SOURCE.
Energy Accounting -- Their term. I don't understand what you are trying to say with that excerpt.
As I said before, we're not coming anywhere. We need help. I'll try WP:RFC.

Mårten Berglund (talk) 14:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV issues in article Energy Accounting (Request for Comment)

[edit]

Editors cannot agree whether article Energy Accounting is having a POV or not. Edit war about POV-tagging. See talkpage as from here. My summary over the conflict can be read here. Mårten Berglund (talk) 14:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No matter what improvements to the article have been made, they are contested and dismissed by an editor. A good healthy debate is required to find consensus often. While that has been attempted here, it requires an open mind and assuming good faith... and that others are not biased or advocates or pressing issues that would, or could, make something non neutral. This editor has not edited the article except by drive by tagging. Improving the article has not been attempted. Content of the article is interesting and well balanced. More information and more citations have been recently added. Earlier, said editor talked of reporting this subject as I think some assstance from WP:FTN should be relevant, as this issue is about undue weight. end quote Mårten Berglund.

This among other things leads me to believe that an editor does not like this subject or thinks it is not notable or not important in and of itself or of marginal 'fringe' value... and desires to be the truth teller who informs the public of this opinion. I reminded said editor early on that M. King Hubbert was not a fringe character ... he may have been one of the most notable geoscientists of the 20th. century... and it was he that wrote out the basic concepts of Energy Accounting as the main author of information published by the Technical Alliance. This term is definently notable in context to the Technical Alliance... and has become also a notable term in energy economics. All this is brought out from all points of view in the article with links such as this... http://www.eoearth.org/article/Net_energy_analysis this http://ecen.com/eee9/ecoterme.htm and this http://telstar.ote.cmu.edu/environ/m3/s3/05account.shtml and multiple other references that are not connected to each other by any organization. skip sievert (talk) 17:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said hundred times: I'm not doing drive-by tagging, please refer to a WP Policy or guideline confirming that I've been doing this and if you can't find any such policy, stop accusing me for that. Further, I don't want to do any edits, since I strongly suspect you would revert them immediately, since you haven't agreed on my proposals here on this talk page - so let's solve the dispute here first, before dwelling into another edit war. I reported the article at WP:FTN since I wasn't sure whether the concept of EA within TechInc was notable; EA as a general concept I think is notable however; but WP:FTN would have been a good place to solve this out, but unfortunately noone there was willing to help us. I know pretty well Hubbert (peak oil), and I also think this subject is very interesting, which I've told you several times, but the important thing is to present the subject in a balanced way. Mårten Berglund (talk) 11:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skip assumptions or implications of other editors motivations are not very helpful, productive or realy that civil so even if you feel that someone has such a motivation it is probably best of deal directly with there actions and leave motivations out of it and stay of the side of assuming good faith

Firebladed (talk) 11:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not come here to do an unrelated putdown of another editor Skip assumptions or implications of other editors motivations are not very helpful, productive or realy that civil so even if you feel that someone has such a motivation it is probably best of deal directly with there actions and leave motivations out of it and stay of the side of assuming good faith Firebladed I have given a good will illustration of what is going on in the page according to my opinion. The question here is about the article... and also whether an editor is tagging and suspecting it is not neutral for what ever reason... even after lengthy debate and a lack of that editors participation in the article, except to complain about it. skip sievert (talk) 16:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also completely removing others comments even if you feel they may be, a personal attack, which that wasn't is in my opinion both bad form, and appears to be bordering on censorship,if you must just remove the questionable content of the comment but leave the record that it was made intact, the comment which you appear to have taken the wrong way not intended as an attack but an attempt to point out that certain aspects of your comments appear, even if not intended, to be making negative implications on other editors which is not usually a helpful of productive thing to do, and therefore something which you should try to avoid doing.Firebladed (talk) 08:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you really feel that this is some form of personal attack, and the comments I have made in good faith, attempting to provide some constructive criticism, on the impression your comments have given, I am quite willing to discuss this, but you feel for any reason you cannot do this directly feel free to create an Wikiquette alert or if you feel it is important enough a (Request for Comment on user conduct) (RfC)

Firebladed (talk) 16:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any editor on Wikipedia can remove personal attacks. I did not want to get into this... but you are a formal paying member of a blog that was blacklisted on Wikipedia http:Disable//en.technocracynet.eu/index.php ...N.E.T.- this site has a long running attacking position on certain editors on Wikipedia, and you seem to be carrying on that tradition whether on your own or by direction. As to harassing people about being civil in a negative and hectoring way.... "This policy is not a weapon to use against other contributors. To treat constructive criticism as an attack, is itself disruptive..." Finding an excuse to come to this page and make a personal attack diatribe about civility against another editor for pointing aspects of editing problems is not appropriate in my opinion. Now if you like you can remove this post and the previous posts related to your making a personal attack and not related to improving the article. Disruptive editing to ax grind unrelated and not accurate opinion?... not suggested. skip sievert (talk) 16:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I have said previously said, what I said was intended as constructive criticism and in no way intended as a personal attack, and im am still not sure why you feel it was, where I was simply pointing out that, the comments you made gave the, I assume was unintended, impression of implying that other editors have some form of hidden motivation, which is an impression that, in general, is not conducive to building consensus or an atmosphere of cooperation

Firebladed (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok... however, implying again about hidden motivation... and saying a negative implication about consensus and cooperation building is another continuation of the same. Please stop. 'To treat constructive criticism as an attack, is itself disruptive.' skip sievert (talk) 17:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that was the impression it gave, and assuming that was not intend, it would be advisable to avoid language that gives that impression. ~~,but i do seem to detect some elements of Pot calling the kettle black.~~

i'll withdraw and apologise for that last comment as was unnecessary.

Firebladed (talk) 17:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While im not heavily read in this area, The term "Energy Accounting" in relation to technocracy inc. (and other related groups) while similar in concept differs from that used in other areas, im not entirely sure of the exact chronological development of it but the definition used by technocracy inc. was developed around the 1920s-30s where as others appear to be more modern developments, that appear from what i have seen, to be more modern developed with little direct relation to technocracy inc.'s version

he most important difference being that with most of the other versions i have seen use money as a base reference unit, like energy economics, instead of actual energy as a base unit.

Also skip appears to have been trying to integrate other related concepts into the article which are not, to my knowledge directly in the technocracy inc. version, which while in itself is not necessarily a bad idea, it in my opinion has resulted too much in a "wall of text" version and not concise, structured or ordered enough, to an extent there is a lack of NPOV but i think that comes partially from the issue of different "definitions" with the same name, that aren't entirely compatible, and partially from editors ridged POV and the fact that for quite a while the article and related articles being subject to unilateral editing, due to what appears to be others giving up, due to being unable to get a consensus that all could agree upon.

in my opinion the article needs the existing information subdividing and reorganising, to separate the general and specific information, (General concept, versions, version origins, arguments for/against etc.), and most importantly less of a wall of text, as attempting to combine other variations on the general concept without doing this would be difficult to do properly

Firebladed (talk) 11:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with you there... and have changed the article accordingly. skip sievert (talk) 00:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some questions and proposals for you to answer about the article about energy accounting (EA):

Firebladed, are you here due to the RfC? Then, that's good!
I think we can now agree on that we're having a dispute whether the article is POV or not. Firebladed, could you put up the POV-tag then? (I won't do it, since Skipsievert has removed it every time so far I've put it up.) I think it should be there, until we all agree that the article is NPOV.
One main problem with the article is the opening sentence: Energy Accounting is a hypothetical system of distribution, proposed by Technocracy Incorporated in the Technocracy Study Course, which would record the energy used to produce and distribute goods and services consumed by citizens in a Technate. That sentence is not NPOV in my opinion. The opening sentence of a WP article should not describe a specific meaning of a concept, rather its general meaning. Could I rephrase this opening paragraph, i.e., leave out the TechInc stuff?
There is in my opinion still undue weight to EA in the view of TechInc. E.g. the section Technical Alliance approach is too long compared to other sections. Also, too many links to TechInc related articles under See also and External links. Could we fix this, and how?
This article talks about a lot of things besides energy accounting, things that are not explained directly why they belong to the concept of energy accounting. See sections History, Frederick Soddy, and Recent energy economics history. Also, it's in the article difficult to find any definition of the general term EA. Why not just have an article that defines Energy accounting, and then that's enough?
There's another article Energy accounting with almost the same spelling. Is it okey for me to merge it with this one? It's confusing and don't make much sense to have that other one. Also, we should follow WP:CAPS.

Mårten Berglund (talk) 00:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not canvas other editors... I think we can now agree on that we're having a dispute whether the article is POV or not. Firebladed, could you put up the POV-tag then? (I won't do it, since Skipsievert has removed it every time so far I've put it up.) I think it should be there, until we all agree that the article is NPOV.

That is not the point here. This editor came here to try and help the article. He has said nothing about this material being neutral non neutral... or other except for some formatting suggestions... which were taken. He made some helpful suggestions which where acted on. I think what you have suggested in general above is without merit. Maybe perhaps the capitals thing has merit. This article is about Energy Accounting, the other term is a monetized version that is different in concept. This is a term that was made notable by the Technical Alliance... and has historic significance because of that. Did you read what Firebladed said...?

So stop already M. B. with the idea that this is not notable. Earlier you wanted to blank the article as a redirect to Energy economics... and talked about reporting it as fringe theory... so I find your ideas here mostly turning into http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing

Could I rephrase this opening paragraph, i.e., leave out the TechInc stuff? You can if you want to but that would be disruptive editing I think. It has been explained to you over and over that TechInc made this term notable originally... and that group is notable. You may disagree or not like this group or their history or their concepts... but the fact is that Wikipedia is for notable subjects... and ideas and how they correlate to other things. The article is about a term made notable by a notable group in a time period of history. The other meanings of the term are also gone into with multiple links and explanations... many of which lead back to the notability of the group that first wrote about this term in links like this http://www.eoearth.org/article/Biophysical_economics and also this http://ecen.com/eee9/ecoterme.htm. Have you read those? Do you understand that the article is about a term that mostly relates to the group that probably invented the term? Those two links are outside of TechInc. From the very start of your arrival and tagging you have not really understood the issues here in my opinion, and seem more interesting in canvassing tags than editing the article constructively. skip sievert (talk) 02:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Im not here directly because of RfC but that is why Im commenting
I can agree that you are argueing over whether is NPOV , but im also of the opinion that edit wars over a tag, which would probably happen are counter productive, and so unless can achieve a consensus over leaving the tag there for a say at least month is not worth it.
As to the opening section in my opinion it would probably be an improvement to move some of the elements about tech inc. to later on in the article, rephraseing to something like "Energy Accounting is an approach to tracking the energy use and distribution within an economic system. The term was originally defined by by Technocracy Incorporated in the 1920-30s, as a hypothetical system which would record the energy used to produce and distribute goods and services consumed by citizens in a Technate. In more recent times the term has been used to describe in a general context to aspects of energy economics and in varied forms areas of current (price system) economics directly.", would probably be an improvement, also I think the willard gibbs section could be moved to latter on in the article.
i would say that aspects of undue weight are mainly due to, the article currently being mainly only about Energy accounting defined by tech inc. and in that context it is not specifically undue, so is due to a shortage of other information rather than too much about tech inc.
i would agree with this to an extent, at the moment in my opinion they are poorly integrated and do not explain there relation to the context of this article, and some could do with condensation with links to more specific and extensive articles.
that other article is supposed to be a disambiguation page, and have moved it to Energy_Accounting_(disambiguation), though it may require some adjustment, or deletion if turns out to be redundant

Firebladed (talk) 10:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am in accord with comments above by Firebladed... and encourage him to make these improvements... for sure his rephrasing of the lead, if he is inclined. Constructive and creative editing of any Wikipedia article will make improvements and further the project. It would be nice to make this a 'B' class article at least. That would take some work. Part of the problem of the article was probably due to its original editing and presentation, and while it is true TechInc in their literature does capitalize the term Energy Accounting usually... it may be confusing as a Wikipedia article title. skip sievert (talk) 17:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okey, I'll do some of this rephrasement and rewriting stuff this weekend, when I've got some time over. Mårten Berglund (talk) 01:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some improvements now:

Requested move of article to "Energy accounting" due to WP:CAPS.
Restructured the article (i.e. moved around sections to make it more logical).
Changed the opening paragraph to something similar to what Firebladed proposed, especially beginning the whole article with the concept of energy accounting as used in industry (this meaning of the concept is the one that gets almost all the hits on Google).
A new section added devoted to the concept used in industry. This section should be expanded to improve the balance of the article.
Sorted out some links under "See also" and "External links" and rearranged some.

Mårten Berglund (talk) 17:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From an initial skim through certainly appears to be an improvement, ill give a more thorough read through later when have more time

Firebladed (talk) 10:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would be fine if you could read through more thoroughly some time. Now there's a paragraph under Energy accounting in industry that's almost repeated under Energy balance. I haven't figured out how to deal with this yet. My intention with the section Energy accounting in industry was to describe the standard concept of energy accounting used in industry, as described for instance by this source. Therefore, that section needs to be expanded. Mårten Berglund (talk) 17:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Area above changed Energy balance.

[edit]

Changed the repeating information to different aspect. Energy return on investment (EROEI) is the ratio of energy delivered to energy costs. Biophysical and ecological economists argue that net energy analysis has several advantages over standard economic analysis.^[1] The idea is to use the First and Second laws of thermodynamics to determine how much energy is needed at each point in the system, and in what form that energy is.^[2]Using that method a biophysical economics or thermoeconomic aspect can be attained. ---- skip sievert (talk) 18:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ http://www.eoearth.org/by/Topic/Ecological%20economics
^ http://telstar.ote.cmu.edu/environ/m3/s3/05account.shtml Environmental Decision making, Science and Technology

Requested move

[edit]

Have requested a move to "Energy accounting" due to earlier discussions. Mårten Berglund (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the page, but now I'm not sure what should be done with Energy Accounting (disambiguation). It only disambiguates two pages, so it really doesn't need to exist (and if it did, it's capitalized incorrectly). Disambiguation should be do-able via a hatnote on this article; I just don't know what it should say. Anyone? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Id say, unless anyone has any objections, it can be deleted as it appears to be orphaned anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Firebladed (talk • contribs) 10:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. skip sievert (talk) 15:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's taken care of. Thanks. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks GTBacchus! Mårten Berglund (talk) 01:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Energy

[edit]

The article Energy was added to this article as a see also, and then another editor reverted that article off (energy art. link). The article here is about energy in all its manifestations and that includes measurement as in accounting... either thermoeconomic accounting or energy economics. Therefore the article energy seems like an appropriate add to this article, as it also explains the subject. Also it is related in a way that seems like it would make sense as a see also. Granted it may be linked in the body of the article somewhere... but it seems like an article link is appropriate also. What are views on this? skip sievert (talk) 01:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that if energy doesn't appear as a link in the article, it shouldn't appear as a #See also, as it would only be indirectly related; and if it does appear as a link, it shouldn't appear as a #See also, per the style guidelines. But, perhaps there's no way to work energy by itself into the article? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think its a big issue either way. The energy article is wikified in the article anyway, that is true. Energy is the primary subject and focus of this article in relationship to other things, so I was thinking it could be emphasized in the 'see also'. Since it is wikified already in the article, either way, is probably ok. skip sievert (talk) 14:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Energy accounting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100105164509/http://telstar.ote.cmu.edu/environ/m3/s3/05account.shtml to http://telstar.ote.cmu.edu/environ/m3/s3/05account.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]