User talk:Ron Paul...Ron Paul...
 | An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sockpuppet of Karmaisking (talk · contribs · logs). Please refer to the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer, and editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. This policy subsection may be helpful. Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth |
Please don't waste your time putting nice messages up. I won't last long enough for it to matter.
Credit squeeze/tightening
I redirected the Credit tightening page to the Credit squeeze page since the text was pretty much exactly the same on both articles. - Akamad (talk) 07:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Good move. Although perhaps (based on my comments on the credit crunch talk page) tightening should survive and squeeze should collapse into tightening. It's up the WP guardians to sort out, but that would be my suggestion. Just to be clear: crunch and tightening are clearly separate. Squeeze can be used interchangeably with both, but should be used only the context of "tightening" (in my humble view). Squeeze is often ambiguous and messy and can refer to either. But functionally they are distinct and so need different terms to describe each phenomenon. - Ron Paul...Ron Paul... (talk) 07:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- I have no knowledge on the matter. My reasoning for redirecting the tightening page to the squeeze page was because the tightening page was recently created, whereas the squeeze page had a longer history. - Akamad (talk) 07:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- OK, we'll see what happens. It would be (slightly) more consistent to have tightening survive and squeeze die out, but I don't mind either way, provided crunch and squeeze/tightening are kept as distinct concepts, in line with the World Bank paper (and general usage). - Ron Paul...Ron Paul... (talk) 07:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- You can always move the page if you wish. - Akamad (talk) 07:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks, but I like what you've done. Unless someone objects, I'll leave it. - Ron Paul...Ron Paul... (talk) 07:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- You can always move the page if you wish. - Akamad (talk) 07:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- OK, we'll see what happens. It would be (slightly) more consistent to have tightening survive and squeeze die out, but I don't mind either way, provided crunch and squeeze/tightening are kept as distinct concepts, in line with the World Bank paper (and general usage). - Ron Paul...Ron Paul... (talk) 07:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- I have no knowledge on the matter. My reasoning for redirecting the tightening page to the squeeze page was because the tightening page was recently created, whereas the squeeze page had a longer history. - Akamad (talk) 07:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Request to move article credit contraction incomplete
You recently filed a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves to move the page credit contraction to a different title - however your proposal is either incomplete or has been contested as being controversial. As a result, it has been moved to the incomplete and contested proposals section. Requests that remain incomplete after five days will be removed.
Please make sure you have completed all three of the following:
- Added {{move|NewName}} at the top of the talk page of the page you want moved, replacing "NewName" with the new name for the article. This creates the required template for you there.
- Added a place for discussion at the bottom of the talk page of the page you want to be moved. This can easily be accomplished by adding {{subst:RMtalk|NewName|reason for move}} to the bottom of the page, which will automatically create a discussion section there.
- Added {{subst:RMlink|PageName|NewName|reason for move}} to the top of today's section here.
If you need any further guidance, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves or contact me on my talk page. - JPG-GR (talk) 17:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)