| Revision as of 03:32, 22 September 2008 editCdogsimmons (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers17,291 edits added comment← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:33, 22 September 2008 edit undoDepartedUser4 (talk | contribs)2,138 edits Stay off my talk page and don't EVER accuse me of vandalism for enforcing policyNext edit → | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
| ... made me chuckle, though I think it may violate ]... :) ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 16:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC) | ... made me chuckle, though I think it may violate ]... :) ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 16:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :He he thanks! When someone spends entire days editing just one talk page they either aren't as independent of the subject as they claim or they are using an alternate account. There's a difference between someone who simply cares about NPOV and someone campaigning on a talk page. It's hard to describe but when you've seen it enough times it becomes very obvious. More seriously, you guys are doing a great job keeping all this as NPOV as it can get. ] (]) 04:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC) | :He he thanks! When someone spends entire days editing just one talk page they either aren't as independent of the subject as they claim or they are using an alternate account. There's a difference between someone who simply cares about NPOV and someone campaigning on a talk page. It's hard to describe but when you've seen it enough times it becomes very obvious. More seriously, you guys are doing a great job keeping all this as NPOV as it can get. ] (]) 04:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC) | ||
| == ] == | |||
| Please do not remove comments from talk pages as you did . Although I agree the page is not a forum, the information was relevant and obviously presented on the talk page as a way of discussing its inclusion in the article. Removing it was not warranted. Please don't remove relevant info in the future. It could be considered vandalism. Thanks.--] (]) 03:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 03:33, 22 September 2008
 | This is my only account. Others who claim to be me are imposters. |
 |
Consensus statement about Austrian economics on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Economics
Hi there,
Sorry to hear about your health problems. Best of luck dude!
I came by because I thought you would like to know that we are trying to hammer out a consensus statement about Austrian economics on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Economics. If you drop into wikipedia, please drop by and leave your comments if you can.
thanks, lk (talk) 16:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hi! Thanks, I'm getting better. I've posted a comment on the talk page. It seems that the debate was mostly about principle 2 which is already oiff the table anyway. Jimbo is not by any stretch an authoritive source on what is questionable science or not and I don't think we should use that definition. There are far, far worse examples of that than Austrian economics. What we should do is keep the coverage in seperate articles and then avoid the undue coverage issue by relying on the sources to determine to what extent Austrian views should be included. EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks
... this comment made me chuckle, though I think it may violate WP:BEANS... :) MastCell 16:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- He he thanks! When someone spends entire days editing just one talk page they either aren't as independent of the subject as they claim or they are using an alternate account. There's a difference between someone who simply cares about NPOV and someone campaigning on a talk page. It's hard to describe but when you've seen it enough times it becomes very obvious. More seriously, you guys are doing a great job keeping all this as NPOV as it can get. EconomicsGuy (talk) 04:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)