User talk:Gmb92

Sorry

I am sorry about calling you a POV warrior. Your edits actually do make the article better, I was wrong.--Southern Texas 18:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think the section contains more useful information and links now. I've also propagated some of these changes to the "Economic Policy..." subsection and have attempted some expansion if you'd like to review it.Gmb92 04:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reaganomics shortening

Hey there. You seem to know a lot about economics, and you have helped the Ronald Reagan article, so can I get your opinion here under the "Reaganomics shortening" section? Thanks, Happyme22 04:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been out awhile. I'm reviewing this section.

No worries

I think it does, too. I've had to read up on the Reagans, since I started out helping Hap back some months ago (and I didn't really agree with any of his policies except Just Say No). The wiki article is in fact better, but we aren't allowed to cite wikipedia. It would be akin to defining chocolate by saying, 'well, it tastes sorta chocolatey...' Lol. And good job, btw - find a new source in short order. So few editors are willing to do the leg work, so it is appreciated. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except I could take the word "chocolate" and link the Wikipedia entry to it. Every other word or phrase in the intro links to a Wikipedia article. I'll revisit this later.Gmb92 06:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald Reagan article

Hi. We could use your input on a problem we're having with an editor, who's constantly inserting an item into the lead when we've all decided by consensus that it doesn't belong. Please see the Reagan talk page for my suggestion, and please comment appropriately. Thanks. Info999 01:12, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I moved your comment to the bottom, so that it can get due attention, and not be missed inthe rest of the rumbling. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Milloy

So, why isn't Milloy a credible source? He is unquestionably a notable and recognized participant in the public debate over GW and his site references scientific papers from authors as credible as anyone who is referenced on RealClimate. In this case he is commenting on the public debate of AIT and he is certainly qualified to do that. His statements do not discuss the science involved so his scientific credentials are a non-issue. His commentary is at least as notable as that of Laurie David AND he recommends showing AIT in the schools. What do you have to argue with about that?

--GoRight 22:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answered in discussion Gmb92 00:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]