User talk:Mikcob

Interest (economics)
Hello Mikcob, how about we redirect Interest (economics) to Interest? The new article is quite short. Shawnc 17:08, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I will combine some terms and link /redirect to them
I will: edit the "returns disambiguation" page to provide a link to "returns (economics)" a new page with the terms interest, wages, and rent (returns to the classical economics "factors of production"). I will make redirects for these terms. Is that OK??

I will also install a link on the "interest" page.

--The Trucker 18:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Economic Rent (political economy)
Thank you for considering my opinion on this article. I believe that two things would do much to improve it:

A) A 3rd person perspective throughout. Currently the format is that of a persuasive essay, as though it is trying to convince the reader to adopt certain beliefs.  Once it is stated who holds these beliefs and, in necessary cases, widely-held opposing beliefs are added, I believe the article will be an excellent addition to Wikipedia.

B) Where this article contradicts the other article on Political Economy, the article should state who it is who holds these beliefs, rather than implying the other article is wrong from an objective/factual point of view. If that were to be the case, than the other article should be edited until it is satisfactory.  This is something of an important sub-goal of point A.

I hope that my suggestions can be of some use, and please feel free to contact me if there is something you disagree with or would like me to clarify. A.Z. 01:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Mikcob:Article
Hey, relax. Personal sandboxes should be created in userspace. I've moved it to User:Mikcob/Article. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

term political economy
until it is cited, i think it has to stay the same. the physiocrats certainly have strong relations to the term and as i recall they used something very much like it only french. i'm pretty sure that smith was not the first to use the term, so if you want to move it back to yours you'll need to find some citations.--Buridan 12:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

sure thing...
 * The first use of the term is said to have been Antoine de Montchretien in his "Treatise on Political Economy" (Traité de l'economie politique), published in Rouen, France, 1615.

From The science of political economy, henry george, p 67. 1898 ...

Note.. a french physiocrat... before adam smith... have a great day. --Buridan 20:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Note, i did not want you to cite non-exitence, i wanted you to cite someone that ascribed it to smith, who was inarguably a popularizer. as for your claiming that i was authoritarian, no, i was just requiring you to provide a citation that would justify changing the current bit that you were changing that i happened to recall was correct.  since the original author thought it was correct, and i thought it was correct, i thought you needed to support your position.  You were entirely right in questioning my position.  the citation above hopefully solve the issue.  have a great day.  Also when you cite things, try to use scholar.google.com or books.google.com please. --Buridan 21:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Ryan-Graph.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Ryan-Graph.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is [ a list of your uploads].

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. feydey (talk) 09:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

July 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=616936941 your edit] to Article One of the United States Bill of Rights may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:37, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ] . The next day the Senate concurred in the amendments as resolved by the House.  http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&amp;fileName=001/llac001.db&amp;recNum=47 "Senate

RE:edit warring
IMO, your persistent and frequent recent reverts to Article One of the United States Bill of Rights constitutes edit warring. Please cease and desist or you will be reported. Drdpw (talk) 23:43, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Reapportionment Act of 1929, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Civil War. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 17 January 2023 (UTC)