User talk:Brusegadi
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Please, feel free to engage in constructive criticism, or, anything regarding the way I post. If it is anything that is relevant to an article, write it in the article talk page. Otherwise, the comments will be deleted (considered, but deleted.)
I am super busy right now, so my number of daily contributions has decreased. I'll be back when the madness ends...
Contents |
[edit] Your comment on vandalism
I'm not an admin; please see WP:Vandalism for instructions on reporting vandalism. Among other things, please remember to put a warning on the offender's Talk page. This leaves a record which is useful in establishing a pattern of habitual vandalism. My view is that WP admins are far too lenient on obvious vandals, so it's best to start documenting vandalism as soon as it happens.
By the way, thanks for your work on the Global warming article! Raymond Arritt 20:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Nicaragua
1 E10 m² and 1 E11 m² refer to the size of the area. 1 E10 is between 10,000 and 99,999 km², 1 E11 is between 100,000 and 999,999 km². So regardless of whether Nicaragua is 129,000 km², 130,000 km² or 130,668 km², it is in the scope of 1 E11 m². The article of 1 E11 m² is what I based the 130,668 m² on, but I may have jumped the gun a bit on that one. Yours, and thanks for the good luck :) Aecis Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 22:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sorry About That
I was reworking the page and my mouse slipped and I meant to click show preview, and clicked save page..I didn't have time to go and revert the mistake.
(All previous vandlisms done by coworkers)
[edit] Merge
Hi, concerning the merge of Economic Growth and Growth theory under the banner of Theory of Economic Growth, I could hardly disagree with you more, sorry. The current state of the articles are pretty much abysmal, however, that will not last forever. If you where to merge the two, then someone will have to come along and re-split them apart later, so it would be self-defeating to do so. Clearly the biggest problem is that the page titled “Growth theory” fails to cover the subject at all, and instead just rehashes Economic growth. However, until someone writes an article concerning growth theory, I would think it beneficial to merge the content of Growth theory into Economic growth and maintain a redirect from Growth theory back to Economic growth. Thanks, Brimba 13:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Please explain
Why did remove the "cite" tag, without providing a citation? --Procrastinating@talk2me 14:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Global warming
Suggest you let the JackMcGuire/JonMoseley nutbag just do his thing, and quietly repair as needed. I've seen many of his type before -- they thrive on any form of attention, whether positive or negative. Responding in ANY way just encourages them. Raymond Arritt 04:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
