User talk:Cretog8

Marginal cost article
Hi Creto8: you were unsure of the source and you deleted all paragraph. A quick search in internet would have demonstrated you that the source is reliable, as it is been considered so by US Labor Office (www.bls.gov/opub/uscs/intro.pdf), European Parliament (http://www.beyond-gdp.eu/proceedings/bgdp_proceedings_overview_annexes.pdf), Princeton University, World Bank and many other scholars:

http://www.google.it/search?q=piana+economics+web+institute+filetype%3Apdf&hl=it&num=100&lr=&ft=i&cr=&safe=images

Accordingly, please restore the deleted paragraph.

Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Logico1950 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Freemium article
Hi Cretog8: I am a fairly new Wikipedia editor and not sure this is the right place to discuss edits (found no other way of contacting you). First of all, thanks for watching pages. I made a few contributions over the past months on specific articles of expertise and noticed this morning that you deleted some of them as part of bulk deletions you made. I believe that the contributions are accurate and non-self promoting. I decided to use a login name from the beginning that would clearly identify myself (not trying to hide my own contributions). Perhaps a newbie question, but is a reference more valid if posted by a third party? I can re-submit it that way but believe that the system should not need to rely on such extra step to remain accurate.

Can you please take a 2nd look at:
 * 04:54, 17 February 2011 Cretog8 (talk | contribs) (4,776 bytes) (→Freemium models: remove insufficiently referenced bit). I posted references to the statement and wrote a book on the matter (which I have not directly referenced). If you want me to remove the reference to my site where research materials are posted and leave the SSRN paper, that's fine.
 * 04:52, 17 February 2011 Cretog8 (talk | contribs) (5,582 bytes) (→External links: remove blogs, promos, and self-published paper). Your bulk edit removed a SSRN paper (the only research paper on Freemium that exists, I believe) which provides the factual justification for the small edit I made at the beginning of the article (ie. that freemium is not limited to digital goods).

Thanks for your consideration. Npujol

Economic collapse
As for the reference I doubt that you even looked at it. Agreed that many Youtube videos are not the best reference but the referenced series is fairly decent. The point of citing the video is the scenes of social chaos.

Whatever your opinion on the Youtube documentaries you hand on right to delete the entire section since the Argentine collapse was a real and well documented event. I followed it at the time and made money buying Argentine stocks cheap. Also, there was a link to the Wikipedia article on the subject.Phmoreno (talk) 01:37, 4 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello-I know there was a link to the article, and that's why I moved the link to the list of links to such things later in the article. I looked at the video a bit (not all the way through, and certainly not the entire series). I found it high in drama and low in information. I don't know if it's from a reputable news source. If you want to take a sourced snippet from the Argentine crisis article and put it into the economic collapse article, I wouldn't object. (If I were thinking about it harder, I might object, since I'm not sure it qualifies as a "collapse" so much as a "crisis", but I'm not giving WP articles that deep thought these days. C RETOG 8(t/c) 01:45, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Bill Mitchell, economist
Thanks for the change in the article's title. Entirely appropriate; I'd say mandatory.-The Gnome (talk) 17:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. C RETOG 8(t/c) 21:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikiproject:Chartalism proposal
Since you have contributed to the article on Chartalism, you might be interested to know that a proposal has been put forward for a Wikiproject on Chartalism, in case you want to support it or participate in the project.-The Gnome (talk) 19:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Market Failure Lede
I'm not sure what you base your claim on when you say that market failure can exist without a possible Pareto improvement. Don't get me wrong. I think market failure is an especially useful concept if we want to describe reality, as market failure does abound, but in each case the reason it is called a failure is because it fails to reach a Pareto optimum. The whole point of a market mechanism, as is proved by Walras' law, is that perfectly competitive markets are Pareto efficient. They fail by being not Pareto efficient, meaning that one person can be made better off without making someone worse off. Do have a source for this claim? It is highly unusual within the academic literature and this is the first time I've ever heard it being made.MoralMoney (talk) 02:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've continued back at article's talk page. C RETOG 8(t/c) 05:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Regulatory capture
Hi, it's really not necessary to add headers to discussion that is from 2006. It's old and outdated, as the discussion pertains to aspects of the article that have been addressed. The relevant discussion is what's recent, or most nearly pertains to the last dated changes on the article itself. Just click on "View history" of the talk page and the article and you can verify dates even for posts that aren't dated. Marrante (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey-I do that just because it helps keep the talk page clean, and if the talk page is later auto-archived, only the stuff which has section headers gets archived. The non-headered stuff tends to stick around forever and get more and more obsolete. C RETOG 8(t/c) 18:31, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that article talk pages ever got archived. Must be pretty rare, though. I don't think I've ever seen any but a user talk page archived. I guess then, that thanks are in order. Marrante (talk) 18:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Economics and energy
Hi Cretog,

Thank you for contacting me directly in order to work out a solution for this problem. Having gone over the discussion you mention, I am opposed to the Economics and energy article partially because it is a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization and partially because it does not appear to adequately address the difficulty at hand. I agree with your assertion that the Energy economics article "should essentially be about the field of applied mainstream economics of energy markets" and therefore that the other topics that could also be called (or at least confused with) "energy economics" should not simply be appended to that article. The problem is that users looking for one of the other articles on topics that could be referred to as (or confused with) "energy economics" have no way of finding those articles. The standard way of solving this problem is to create a distinguishing hatnote for topics that could be confused with the title and a disambiguation page for the topics that could be referred to by the title. How would you feel about such a solution?

Neelix (talk) 15:16, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The hatnote is probably the way to go, possibly supported by a more-explicitly disambiguation page. I'll userspace the Economics and energy page for myself to cannibalize later if needed. Thanks C RETOG 8(t/c) 05:32, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

ANI discussion
It looks like someone is stalking you and undoing your edits. I've raised the issue at ANI. regards, LK (talk) 05:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Wacky. Thanks! It looks like it's been handled already. C RETOG 8(t/c) 15:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

comments on higher ed
i saw yr edit on http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Higher_education_bubble&diff=prev&oldid=439290072 -- not planning on reversing you or arguing about it, but the source looks reliable --even tho I admit it cites InflationUS, which I think is on a block list --but the source which is listed seems reliable for the claim made.

But if u disagree & respectfully dissent, maybe another course could/should be cited in its place, as the original claim looks true.71.100.178.81 (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * maybe I could make a similar (though different) claims that is more easily provable --something about debt burden in general --and that is much easier to verify.71.100.178.81 (talk) 19:28, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

UPDATE: if you see my edit contribs, you'll see that i not only fixed THAT entry, I fixed a similar one on a related page. Job done! Thx 4 the catch.71.100.178.81 (talk) 19:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that does look like a better source. As I say on the talk page, I'm not impressed with the argument, but I think the whole discussion is pretty incoherent, so I guess it does fit in.


 * As an aside, I'm not sure the notion of a "higher education bubble" even makes sense. A "bubble" generally consists of people buying things at a high price, expecting to be able to resell them at an even higher price. The reselling is a basic characteristic which makes bubbles possible. While one can "sell" the fruits of an education, I can't buy your education today hoping to resell your education to someone else tomorrow at a profit. C RETOG 8(t/c) 23:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * No problemo, Bro -- always glad to be of good and anonymous help 2u here; -- In any case, yes, that criticism was lobbed: A bubble 'bursts' when the commodity is only able to be 'resold' at a low price --and the seller loses --but, think of it: Even in the case of an intangible object (e.g., education), the 'reselling' of it (via getting a job, to 'sell yourself' to the company and then being 'paid' for your product, i.e., by a paycheck) is still a loose analogy that fits: Since many college students AREN'T able to get a job, then they can't 'resell' their talents at a price to recoup their loss -and, insofar as they are hurt, the bubble burst there too. Yes, it's all a bunch of word-play, gibberish, but then again, American Higher EDUCATION is a bunch of bull malarkey etc. ha ha! --So, junk fits in with junk --and it's like a PhD: Piled higher & Deeper! LOL. --OK, I've beat a dead horse to death, so I'll let'em rest in peace. Peace out, bro!--71.100.190.251 (talk) 19:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Reply to your comment on a new link in Risk Aversion
Your comment: Hello-The material you're linking to at sigmadewe.com might be very good, but it doesn't seem like it comes from the kind of source (published, reviewed, academic, or some such) that's really appropriate for Wikipedia. I expect that when you create the material you use other sources, so maybe you could directly cite the sources you used instead of linking to your articles? CRETOG8(t/c) 08:55, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Reply: Hi! I would like to make two comments: 1. Sources we use are cited in the pdf document. I thought this contribution might be interesting for all those people who are risk-averse investors and want to find out what portion of stocks they should invest in. We have an academic background which you can find here. We are not aware of a directly comparable work. 2. Please be aware of my second change, the elimination of the first link which is no longer valid. Please improve the article by cancelling this first link. Maybe you even revise your opinion concerning the link to our document. In any case: thanks for having an eye to changes in this field. --Iratheclimber (talk) 08:54, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Economics help
It sounds like you've taken quite the break, but I'm wondering if you can help me fix something that I believe is in dire need of fixing. This is a huge problem for the way economic theory is treated in wikipedia. The definitions of socialism and capitalism that are used in wikipedia neither reflect the usage of the terms within the school of economics nor do they accurately describe the countries that are generally considered to be, or define themselves to be, socialist or capitalist. Worse yet, the definitions of the terms reflect the usage of the terms by a specific segment of the US population. That is, socialism is meant to be synonymous with a command economy, or a planned economy, according to the misuse of the terms in wikipedia. And capitalism is meant to be synonymous with laissez-faire according to the misuse. For example, the US could not be considered to be capitalist by wikipedia standards, yet is is one of the most market-oriented modern democracies in the existence. In fact, by wikipedia standards, no country could be considered to be capitalist! I have both undergraduate and graduate texts that clarify the misuse of these terms, however a segment of the US population has made it especially difficult to change much of these definitions. This takes away from the more economic approach of defining a free market economy, mixed economy, and command economy as the economies with differing levels of central planning. I know that neither political economy nor economic history is your field, but I was hoping you could give me some advice as to how to properly fix these essential components of the wikipedia project. As is, the economic concepts that the general public uses most often are horribly misused and incorrectly defined in wikipedia. Can you lend some guidance as to how to fix this problem? Nelbev (talk) 05:49, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello-Sorry it took my so long to respond. I've been busy, but also simply not sure the best way to respond. I really tend to avoid those particular definitional battles for various reasons, so I'm not going to work on the articles directly with you. So, hmmm, do I have useful advice? Not sure, but I'll try:
 * Generally, be stubborn, polite, and patient.
 * Stick to Wikipedia rules, avoid getting into edit wars as much as possible. If others don't stick to the rules, cut them some slack, but if it is an ongoing problem, do complain at the noticeboards.
 * Concentrate on quality references, both yours and those used by others. This is difficult, but very worthwhile.
 * You can ask for help from a Wikiproject. Obviously, the economics wikiproject, but for what you're looking at, it's possible one of the other associated wikiprojects might be better (a bunch listed in Talk:Socialism page). Keep in mind, that won't necessarily draw in people who share your perspective, it might draw the attention of those who both agree and those who disagree with you.
 * I kinda hate to do this, cuz I'm sure they're very busy, but there's a very experienced editor/admin Protonk, who also knows economics and how WP functions in practice. Copying your request from here to Protnk's talk might get you more useful advice.
 * Finally, addressing the specific topic: one big reason I avoid these definitional issues is that it's not clear to me that they're resolvable. I expect there are many different definitions of socialism and capitalism, that have validity in different contexts. So, it may be that there's an essential conflict between your correct definitions (I haven't verified yours are correct, this is for the sake of argument) and others' different correct definitions. If so, have some humility, and maybe try to write that conflict into the article rather than battling it out.
 * I have no idea if any of this is helpful, but good luck. C RETOG 8(t/c) 17:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)


 * A second thought: I hadn't looked at anything you'd done before writing the above. I just checked out this, which appears to be your first contribution on the talk page for Socialism. It's too late to make a good first impression, but I'd recommend you do your best. While it may be true that the article sucks, probably some who read that message worked in good faith to make it as good as they could, so leaping in and saying (1) "This sucks", and (2) "I know better and I'm going to edit war to fix it no matter how much you try to make it suck" is not a good way to introduce yourself. Make changes, explain your changes if needed (see WP:BRD), but remember assume good faith and it's easier to be an asshole to words than to people. C RETOG 8(t/c) 17:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Game sweatshop
I made a new nomination and I have specifically asked for a more detailed look since the page seems not to have changed much and last time it was closed on SNOW grounds which I don't thinka apply given the reasons stated in the AfD. 陣 内 Jinnai 17:33, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, when I clicked the link to look at the discussion, it went to the closed discussion. I see the new discussion now. Sorry about that. C RETOG 8(t/c) 17:34, 4 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, I tried to fix your additions to the "multiple issues" template, but not everything worked. It looks cleaner, but doesn't include all the items you added. I'm not trying to exclude anything, but maybe you need to look closer at the docs for how to use that template. C RETOG 8(t/c) 17:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Advice
Hello there, I have been seeing you are very active in helping us in the Indian Education Program with our articles. But can you provide a bit more detail reasons for deletion...Thanks a bunch...

Can you also help review my additions to the my articles. They are in the Group pages in Symbiosis School of Economics, Year 2, Group B...

Thanks a bunch... Debastein1 (talk) 07:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

World economy
Hey, sorry I forgot to add in references. IMF has just released the new data a few hours ago so I updated the %. I was the original creator of that "2010-2016 BRIC lead growth forecast" section btw. User:cchow2(cchow2 17:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Social capital
I agree, and even publication shouldn't be enough. There are 1000s of papers published on social capital. Anyway, if you hit 3RR, I will back you, but off line much of tomorrow. Bellagio99 (talk) 23:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think SSRN is a great thing for academics, but it's a bad thing for Wikipedia because it gives the impression something has been published when it's really self-published. As for that particular paper, I haven't even read the abstract, it would have to be considered on its merits once it was published. C RETOG 8(t/c) 23:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Lack of edit summaries and removal of sources
I see you have removed material, including sources, from several articles without edit summaries. You should know that this is not a good idea, please stop. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 05:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Shapley-Folkman lemma: Featured article nomination
Hi Cretog8!

With your interests in game theory and economics, you may be interested in making suggestions regarding the Shapley-Folkman lemma, which seems to be passing its Featured Article nomination.

It may appear on the main page, which would be good for mathematical economics.

Cheers, Kiefer .Wolfowitz 17:56, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Oi, I rarely wear my theorist hat at WP because I tend to come here for hit-and-runs, and that article looks like (at least) a day spent pondering. But perhaps! C RETOG 8(t/c) 18:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Imagine yourself a undergraduate student trying to understand what Hal Varian meant when he vaguely discussed aggregation of non-convexities in his Intermediate Microeconomics.


 * You might look at Jacques Drèze, also, which could use a hit-and-run editor, or even a vacationing editor. (I have been wishing for years that Drèze and Edmond Malinvaud receive the Nobel Prize for their work on disequilibrium economics, econometrics, and economic policy. Let us wish that they receive it on Monday!) Kiefer .Wolfowitz 10:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

A plea for help
''My Article has been deleted again & again. Please guide me 4 same''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsubha (talk • contribs) 10:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Macroeconomics
This subject has not been properly treated and is very unbalanced as regarding sub-subjects and the small amount of information displayed. For that reason I attempted to provide a new set of paragraphs which were immediately blocked by you. I can understand and even accept that this presentation was not ideal, but considering that a) there was nothing better and b) editorial changes can always be introduced without cancelling the whole thing, I would suggest that this approach is particularly harsh. You comment that what I wrote being like an essay is unfair, it was not so long as an essay and it did cover a number of vary basic consideration about the nature of this vital subject.

This criticsm becomes more serious when I observe from the history of editing Macroeconomics that almost every editorial change has been blocked by you or some other editor and that no progress has been made at improving this most essential Wiki-article. Education about macroeconomics can change the world and where better place to get it but here? I would like to take a responsible role in writing in Wipipedia on this subject, having already completed a book on theoretical macroeconomics which is not yet published. There is a dire need for coordination of presentation; the matter is complicated and it can be expressed in a variety of diffrerent styles. Surely the editor's job is to assist (including the adding of references) and similar "office-boy" jobs which are still useful, not simply reject everyone's attempt unless the contribution is semi-perfect.

Since my academic qualification is an MSc in Egineering it is very easy for a Doctorate in Economics to bully his/her way against my contribution. I believe that it is most necessary for anyone who can make a useful contribution to be given a fair chance which so far his not been the case here, although my other contributions on different subjects were not challenged. I see that other would-be contributors are similary baffled....

I intend to take this further unless a more reasonable attitude to my work is the result of this complaint.Macrocompassion (talk) 12:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello. I agree in principle with most of what you say above. I think that improvement is important, and that people should be treated fairly. While I care about economics and am active in WikiProject Economics, my outside credentials don't give me any special authority here on Wikipedia.
 * I don't devote much time to Wikipedia, and, for good or ill, what that often means is that my role here comes down to "blocking" what I believe to be negative changes without contributing a great deal in terms of positive changes. I believe that the material you added to the macroeconomics article were, on the whole, a bad change. I think it's responsible to try to prevent a bad change even if doing so might seem rude to the person making the change, because it's about the quality of the encyclopedia. I did (and still do) encourage you to discuss changes with others, whether on the article talk page or at Wikiproject Economics. If you convince enough other people that your changes are for the better, then I can't (and probably wouldn't want to) stand in the way. I don't believe that's likely for the changes I saw. If you discuss with others, you might find a better way to fix things which would satisfy both you and me. C RETOG 8(t/c) 16:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Walras's Law
Hi..Cretog8.....i added a section called "the algebra of Walras's Law" and you have deleted it.....i read your reasons....i partially agree...but there are so many other articles which show the algebric derivations of so many other laws and theories of the economics......i think it is a valid thing to be there.....however....as you said that it is too textbookish.....i will SURELY try to abridge it.....

KINDLY...DO NOT DELETE IT FROM THE MAIN PAGE AS IT IS MY COLLEGE THING AND I AM GETTING MARKED ON IT..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rg the secret (talk • contribs) 18:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

WP Economics in the Signpost
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Economics for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 07:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Your edit is unfair to non-experts
Dear Cretog8,

Principles of Microeconomics usually start with a simple graph depicting utility between 2 goods as a downward sloping convex curve.

But economists - to my knowledge - usually don't assert the obvious. Which is what I did with this add to the Utility page.

"In other words, most economists would believe that consumers prefer to consume a variety of goods, over a larger quantity of a single good. This assumption is critical and often understated: consumers prefer variety."

It's an assumption of the model very often presented almost as a law of economic science. Your assertion this is "more or less true" is beside the point.

I do not claim to its validity, although I do prefer variety as most humans also probably do.

I am simply stating in English what the previous line stated in Math. Economists assume a preference for variety. If you don't like my statement, why don't you erase the previous one which states the same thing? (Please don't)

I would appreciate if your hit-and-runs had more judgement about how Wikipedia is used by non-experts.

Sincerely, --Caramsay (talk) 17:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)caramsay

Thanks!
Thank you for fixing the old vandalism in the Demand article. Gosh I wonder how it went unnoticed for so long. Anyway :)

Regards Abhilasha369 (talk) 08:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

File:DeBloafered Bids.png missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as: is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
 * File:DeBloafered Bids.png

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 08:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

File:DeBloafered Bids.png listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:DeBloafered Bids.png, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 13:43, 18 April 2013 (UTC)