User talk:Ntotten

Speedy deletion of Miggs
A tag has been placed on Miggs, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD a7.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add  on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add  on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. B figura (talk) 23:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Quantitative Easing
You have made an edit to the QE page and left the message "Corrected the 'process' portion. Not a huge edit because I know that Caparn will change it back to his incorrect and politically inflammatory version in a matter of hours.". I believe the changes you have made are incorrect and that what you have deleted was true fact. I also have valid references for those parts, and not from just the BBC news but also the financial times. Both of these sources are valid for references Wikipedia articles. When you do just delete a section that you think will be changed back you should leave a note in the discussion page leaving evidence for your statement. In particular in addition to the BBC article which you do not think is correct please also see the Financial Times article which says the same thing. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8ada2ad4-f3b9-11dd-9c4b-0000779fd2ac.html#axzz19A7zyGLE. Please also read the following articles from The Times, BBC, Financial Times, Telegraph and Guardian all of which refer to QE as printing money.:

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/the_times_mpc/article5847958.ece

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/stephanieflanders/2009/02/obtaining_the_right_to_print_m.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/stephanieflanders/2009/02/just_follow_the_money.html

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/737c1928-fe53-11df-abac-00144feab49a.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/recession/4941631/Bank-of-England-to-creating-new-money-a-QandA.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/nov/08/fed-quantitative-easing-may-lead-to-disaster

You have also referred to the section you deleted as "politically inflammatory", please could you explain this on the discussion page of the article? Please also state any reasons for your changes on the discussion page of the QE article and also produce referenceable evidence rather than just your gut feelings when editing articles. Again what you deleted was not incorrect and was backed up with references. --Caparn (talk) 21:52, 25 December 2010 (UTC)