Talk:Energy accounting

message: 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)
thread_title:  Incorrect criticisms 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Rewrite proposed 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  The term 'credit' 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Ross Murphy, Could you give a few examples 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Improvements made in article 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  It is now established even by Kolzene director of TechCa. that Energy credits is a misnomer. 

message: :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)
thread_title:  Terms 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Energy Accounting reference point 

message: 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)
thread_title:  An editor here removes links to the originators of the concept of Energy accounting 

message: 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)
thread_title: added reference link

message: 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 ):
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 ):
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)
thread_title: More repetition

message: This paragraph appears in several other WP articles (see ):
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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Some more repetition

message: * 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Comments

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: A reminder

message: 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.http://www.eoearth.org/by/Topic/Ecological%20economics 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.http://telstar.ote.cmu.edu/environ/m3/s3/05account.shtml Environmental Decision making, Science and TechnologyUsing that method a biophysical economics or thermoeconomic aspect can be attained. ---- skip sievert (talk) 18:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Area above changed ''Energy balance''.

message: Have requested a move to "Energy accounting" due to earlier discussions. Mårten Berglund (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Agree. skip sievert (talk) 15:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's taken care of. Thanks. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks GTBacchus! Mårten Berglund (talk) 01:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Energy

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:04, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified