Misplaced Pages

Talk:Real prices and ideal prices: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:46, 23 June 2014 editBobrayner (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers53,706 edits →Removal of referenced text: reply← Previous edit Revision as of 19:29, 6 July 2014 edit undoJurriaan (talk | contribs)11,915 editsm →Removal of referenced textNext edit →
Line 16: Line 16:
:2. Don't cite a source and then directly contradict it in article content that you wrote yourself. That's a Bad Thing. :2. Don't cite a source and then directly contradict it in article content that you wrote yourself. That's a Bad Thing.
:There are more reasons. ] (]) 19:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC) :There are more reasons. ] (]) 19:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

==Beware of Bob Rayner's "editing"==
The scam editor Bob Rayner ] specializes in cutting large bits out of articles that he doesn't like, for no reason at all or for some spurious reason. He doesn't understand anything about the subjectmatter. The article then has to be reset to what is was before his vandalism. This article is still being worked on from time to time and Rayner's destructive habits are unwanted here. ] (]) 19:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:29, 6 July 2014

WikiProject iconEconomics Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics
???This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

“Original research”?

The concern that this article contain “original research” might be completely allayed by sufficient use of inline citations. —SlamDiego←T 20:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Theft of the article

This article was stolen by Betascript Publishing, and published under the name of authors who did not write it. . User:Jurriaan 2 january 2011 17:27 (UTC)

Removal of referenced text

Bob Rayner has again cut out large parts of important referenced text for his ideological reasons, rather than genuine scientific reasons, without proper explanation or discussion. All I can say for now is, that if people are interested to read to full article, they can consult the version of 23 April 2014 in the archive annex of this article.Jurriaan (talk) 19:07, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Here are two good reasons:
1. Avoid original research and synthesis.
2. Don't cite a source and then directly contradict it in article content that you wrote yourself. That's a Bad Thing.
There are more reasons. bobrayner (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Beware of Bob Rayner's "editing"

The scam editor Bob Rayner User:Bobrayner specializes in cutting large bits out of articles that he doesn't like, for no reason at all or for some spurious reason. He doesn't understand anything about the subjectmatter. The article then has to be reset to what is was before his vandalism. This article is still being worked on from time to time and Rayner's destructive habits are unwanted here. Jurriaan (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Categories: