Jump to content

User talk:Richard New Forest/Archive 2009

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Richard New Forest (talk | contribs) at 22:23, 8 March 2009 (Archiving old discussion.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This page is archived discussion from User talk:Richard New Forest. It covers the period from January 2009 on.

Hello Richard! Just dropping you a note to let you know that we're pushing to get Suffolk Punch to FA status. I know you dropped in some comments and info/sources a few months ago, but if you would like to take another run through the article, it would be fantastic! All the eyes we can get will be helpful. Thanks in advance for your time. Dana boomer (talk) 17:41, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dana. Yes, I'd noticed that idea, & I'll have a run through it when I can. Richard New Forest (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to WikiProject Biota of Great Britain and Ireland

Hi Richard, just thought you might be interested in the WikiProject Biota of Great Britain and Ireland. We're covering and organising wildlife from Great Britain and Ireland, most of the articles of which need love and attention! Hope you can spare some time to have a look. Cheers, Jack (talk) 00:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had edited some of he articles based on Joachim Radkaus famous book about history of the environment. I have as well adapted the Wikimedia Commons entry in the German wiwki. Would be great if you could have a look. It resulted in some heated discussions on the german Wikipedia. A comprisive statement about the actual 'state of the commons' is to be found in (Baland & Platteau, 1996; Leach, Mearns, & Scoones, 1999)." (Banks 2003, p. 2130): "A major deficiency of both the conventional and new institutional economic approaches is that they are too closely tied to ideal-type property rights regimes, private and common property respectively. It could be erroneously concluded that the choice was between one or the other, and that significant efficiency costs of one kind or another were unavoidable. Fortunately, however, property rights in practice are far more diverse than what four ideal-type property rights regimes (private, common, state and open-access) encompass. The concept of co-management has gained increasing attention by researchers, policy makers and development practitioners in recent years BR --Polentario (talk) 00:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]