Talk:Inflation: Difference between revisions
imported>Hayford Peirce (→Definition: removed redundant header) |
imported>Nick Gardner No edit summary |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
==Definition== | ==Definition== | ||
Nick, I see that you deleted my addition with no comment whatsoever. I think that this is rather rude, in that I made a good-faith effort to improve the article. Tell me, don't *YOU* think it would be nice to define "inflation" first? And, if not, why not? [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 16:43, 10 September 2008 (CDT) | Nick, I see that you deleted my addition with no comment whatsoever. I think that this is rather rude, in that I made a good-faith effort to improve the article. Tell me, don't *YOU* think it would be nice to define "inflation" first? And, if not, why not? [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 16:43, 10 September 2008 (CDT) | ||
Hayford - I appreciate your good intentions and I have no wish to give offence, but it took me a little while to explain what I have done, during which time your rapid response has prevented my reply from being saved. Now I shall to draft my explanation again - which I cannot start until tomorrow. Might I suggest that the provision of advance warning of alterations to an article might usefully avoid this sort of misunderstanding? [[User:Nick Gardner|Nick Gardner]] 17:00, 10 September 2008 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 16:00, 10 September 2008
- Most of the paragraphs in this article could be expanded by drawing further on the article's references. Alternatively, further explanatory matter could be provided by other (as yet unwritten) articles such as monetarism, incomes policies and economic history. Nick Gardner 10:52, 10 September 2008 (CDT)
Definition
Nick, I see that you deleted my addition with no comment whatsoever. I think that this is rather rude, in that I made a good-faith effort to improve the article. Tell me, don't *YOU* think it would be nice to define "inflation" first? And, if not, why not? Hayford Peirce 16:43, 10 September 2008 (CDT)
Hayford - I appreciate your good intentions and I have no wish to give offence, but it took me a little while to explain what I have done, during which time your rapid response has prevented my reply from being saved. Now I shall to draft my explanation again - which I cannot start until tomorrow. Might I suggest that the provision of advance warning of alterations to an article might usefully avoid this sort of misunderstanding? Nick Gardner 17:00, 10 September 2008 (CDT)