This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
|
comments / concerns on this article? Post 'em up. See also
A
proposed deletion template has been added to the article
Monetary policy of the USA, suggesting that it be deleted according to the
proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's
criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "
What Wikipedia is not" and
Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{
dated prod}}
notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on
its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the
proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the
speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to
Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if
consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{
db-author}}
to the top of
Monetary policy of the USA.
As a reminder, feel welcome to poke me if you need help in the future. — Coren (talk) 04:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
An editor has nominated Monetary policy of the USA, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also " What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monetary policy of the USA and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot ( talk) 14:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! -- SineBot ( talk) 18:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
1
Hi BigK HeX, apologies for the confusion regarding the WP:WQA post. For what it's worth, I broadly agree with your comments about Zenwhat. Addhoc ( talk) 22:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
It looks like people are missing your point about the specific sections in socialized medicine that you are proposing be merged. May I suggest that you clarify the subheadings on the talk page -- expand to full section headings and link them to those sections in socialized medicine? Otherwise, I think we're going to head down the wrong road on the discussion and it will be hard to see if there's consensus on any of the section mergers. -- Sfmammamia ( talk) 17:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Et tu? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.51.112 ( talk) 09:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
It's all fun and games until someone's economy impodes...we should all grow up and realize financial economics is deadly serious and has a MORAL DIMENSION (i.e. it can KILL if FRB is used recklessly). - OurFutureIsDetroit ( talk) 03:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Undue weight does not mean different viewpoints should be implied to be lesser. The Austrian school can have it's own section. It does not make up a large part of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.125.108.39 ( talk) 22:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on [[: Federal_Reserve_System#Business_cycles.2C_libertarian_philosophy_and_free_markets]]. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. -- 70.125.108.39 ( talk) 08:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
== Not "BS Claim" "The Fed was largely responsible for converting what might have been a garden-variety recession, although perhaps a fairly severe one, into a major catastrophe. Instead of using its powers to offset the depression, it presided over a decline in the quantity of money by one-third from 1929 to 1933 ... Far from the depression being a failure of the free-enterprise system, it was a tragic failure of government." —Milton Friedman, Two Lucky People, 233 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.125.108.39 ( talk) 15:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. These kinds of disruptive edits happen in a cyclical fashion on all major economics articles. It might be worthwhile to get the article protected if it persists. radek ( talk) 02:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to remind you to use discussion and avoid excessive use of reverts so as to prevent an edit war on Austrian School. Thanks. Nja 247 07:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |