Talk:Club good

message: :Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 11:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Pyat rublei 1997.jpg

message: I'm working on a Master-Thesis in Educational Science in Germany. Everybody here says "Bildung ist keine Ware" wich means something like "Education is not for sale". Wich is true for Germany. But I wonder if it's a Club-Good because the use is restricted by grades. I hope someone can aswer this question. I'm quite astonished, that nobody seems to work on that issue.
Oft fällt ein Gut nicht generell in eine der vier Kategorien, sondern es hängt von den
Umständen ab, um welche Art von Gut es sich handelt!!!!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.20.202.109 (talk) 13:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: National (free) education is a common good along with national health care and national defense. They are all paid by tax dollars or allocated by governments for their citizens. Paid for private education is a club good. I don't know how to change the chart. USchick (talk) 23:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  It makes a difference what is being discussed, national or international economics. Not everyone is entitled to national defense, education, and health care, or even food! It all depends on where you are at the moment. USchick (talk) 23:48, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Education a Club-Good? 

message: I had to, unfortunately, revert this rewrite. While it seems good faithed and introduced expanded material, it has two major problems. First, it removes the old text entirely; as far as I can tell, nothing is preserved. This is not fair for editors who have been working on this article in the past; they deserve at least an explanation on talk. Second, the new article is poorly formatted - it has no blue links (WP:BTW), and in fact it introduces numerous Manual of Style issues: it removes categories (WP:CATEGORIES), it removes interwiki links and (a minor issue) it is even signed in mainspace (we do not sign articles, attribution is present in history). Overall, those are not major issues, but they should be addressed. I can offer help with technical issues (links), but I'd ask the editor who rewrote the article to 1) explain why s/he deemed it necessary to remove all previous text and tables and 2) to restore, in his/her new revision, the categories and interwiki links which where present in the old version (and my current, after the revert). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 17:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with rewrite

message: The discussion above (both sections)  do not seem to be focused on article improvement.  Was Sesame Street included as a genuine effort to create an interesting and valuable article? If so, then wonderful. It should be, I would hope, simple or easy to explain why it is germaine to the article.  But if it was added as a test or taunt to see if other editors would catch it, then the addition was WP:POINTy. – S. Rich (talk) 22:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: To a certain extent...I'm happy to try and teach these concepts.  But you haven't been willing to meet me half way.  You never do your own homework.  Instead, you expect me to jump through your hoops like some sort of circus clown.  It's ridiculous.  Learn from Capitalismojo.  He read over the material and was able to provide a reasonably informed perspective on the topic of whether or not the Sesame Street song is relevant to this article.  If an editor doesn't do their own homework...then how can they possibly identify whether a discussion is relevant to article improvement? --Xerographica (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Then your point was to teach me and other editors?  – S. Rich (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: POINTy addition?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Club good. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130114013243/http://hope.econ.duke.edu/sites/default/files/Buchanan%20externalities%20marciano.pdf to http://hope.econ.duke.edu/sites/default/files/Buchanan%20externalities%20marciano.pdf
*Added  tag to http://193.40.33.19/doc/Sepp_Klubiteooria.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:55, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified