User talk:Adam Eran

April 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Government spending, you may be blocked from editing. CLCStudent (talk) 18:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

/* Heterodox Economics Disagrees */

A revised version appears now.

February 2023

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Government spending, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Philipnelson99 (talk) 21:20, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious what qualifies as "original research" in the edits in the Government Spending articles. I've cited authorities in Modern Money Theory (which has its own textbook now: Macroeconomics by Mitchell, Wray and Watt), an authority on economic history (Michael Hudson) and even Wall Street investors. By my lights, It's pretty unoriginal. The Bank of England even refutes the "loanable funds" theory (see https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3274706).

So...what's "original" by Wikipedia's lights? Adam Eran (talk) 21:43, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Government spending. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Philipnelson99 (talk) 21:49, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, what specifically is "novel" or "original" ... there are lots of citations embedded in the article. Please specify *exactly* what needs source support, or is "novel" or "original"... This stuff is conventional MMT. And please cite what is not "reliable," too. Adam Eran (talk) 21:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. Izno (talk) 22:30, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll make it neutral. Adam Eran (talk) 01:23, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Izno, it happened again. Here's the diff. Philipnelson99 (talk) 18:24, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Adam_Eran reported by User:Izno (Result: ). Thank you. Izno (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Government spending) for edit warring.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 18:49, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adam, I've reverted your comments at WP:AN3. If you wish to discuss your issues with the article, you may do it at the Government spending Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]