User talk:Cretog8/Archive3

Archived on October 6, 2010

Very funny
I thought I accurately answered the question. Congrats on the above, which is certainly impressive. Vivas aren't easy, so I bet you're happy. Well done, and send me an email some time telling me what it was about.  Wik idea  23:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for congrats, and yes, I'm very happy! Regarding civility, I can understand the frustration, and I do think that VT pushes the limits of tendentious frequently, but I'd be grateful if you could hold your tongue/fingers, because I suspect it will lead to losing your contributions rather than VT's. C RETOG 8(t/c) 11:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Right about my edit being WP:OR
You're right that my earlier edit on economic freedom was [[WP:OR|OR]. But I've got to say it's surprising that no one has pointed it out. I checked on Google Scholar and couldn't find anyone who published that fairly shocking disjuncture between EF indices and HDI scores. Maybe I should write up a journal article. My search did turn up the source for my more recent edit.

I think maybe the problem with the economic freedom indices is that Heritage and Fraser try to sneak in a lot of other aspects of libertarianism into the core concept. In other words, EF may be a useful concept, but those two indices are simply ideological. Academic38 (talk) 23:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There's some good scholarship around the EF indices, but there's still a selection bias in who does the research, and I think that's part of why the research comes out the way it does. I also admit that I don't understand how they decide to weight various elements in the indices, which seems a really iffy idea (same for other indices which are supposed to give a single number to some broad social phenomenon). I think any idea of "economic freedom" is bound to be ideological, and that's OK with me as long as it's treated honestly and it's acknowledged that there's different ideas of what it can mean. C RETOG 8(t/c) 00:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Inflation move
Yeah, it was a weird technical thing; I did a history merge to make sure that all the edits to the article are in one place. Graham 87 03:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah! Gotcha, thanks! C RETOG 8(t/c) 04:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

KiK sock
About your reversion of User:TruthAndZealotryDon'tMix on the Krugman page. It's a sock of banned user User:Karmaisking. It's no use suggesting that he take it to the talk page, as he's a completely unreasonable zealot. Best to just revert quickly and label 'rv banned user' whenever you see one of his socks. Regards, LK (talk) 09:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi LK. Yeah, I could tell it was a sock, but I don't know the ins and outs of tagging it as such, and I want to stay on the right side of AGF, so I was essentially stalling. I need to figure out the sockpuppet stuff so you don't have to do ALL the work on KiK. C RETOG 8(t/c) 12:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Krugman
Don't revert my changes on Krugman's BLP article without first discussion on the article talk page. The section your reverting to isn't just wrong, it's a damn lie. You might want to read the cites. Scribner (talk) 02:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Keynes
Im planning to enter John Maynard Keynes as a candidate for promotion to featured article status. If you have time over the next week or so it would be great if you have a look and make any changes you think are required. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey-Thanks for the heads-up. I'm guessing I won't be able to help though, both because I'm really preoccupied this week, and because I know very little about Keynes the man. C RETOG 8(t/c) 17:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Machina
I'm pretty sure that there used to be an article on Machina. In beginning a search to find out what had happened to it, I discovered the subject on your to-do list. I've not yet learned why it was deleted; I haven't found an AfD for it. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 07:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That's odd. Given how diligent I've been in working through my to-dos, it would be excellent if it turned up again. (This also reminds me that there should be an article on the Machina triangle).C RETOG 8(t/c) 17:34, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW, I had seen that there was not “Mark Machina” and created that as a redirect to “Mark J. Machina”, only to find it redlinked. So, if you investigate, you may find my request for a speedy deletion of that redirect.  I don't want to try recreating an article on Machina until I find out why the first disappeared. (And I'm not sure when I'll really look into it, as other matters call.)
 * I quite agree that an article on Machina is to be desired; I think that it is very much to be desired. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 18:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)


 * After checking with an admin to ensure that I wouldn't step on a mine by doing so, I created a stub of the article.
 * BTW, I'm not sure to what you refer as “the Machina triangle”, but if it's the diagram for three outcomes, with a probability on each axis, that he uses to illustrate the expected utility hypothesis and deviations thereof, then I would mention that I once asked Machina about who introduced these, and he said that he thought that they were introduced by Samuelson. Now, G_d knows that Machina is an peculiar man, and I find it quite conceivable that he would have said this even were they Machina's own invention.  And, of course, we have a long tradition (as per Stigler's law) of not naming things for their first inventors or discoverers. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 16:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! A stub's far better than nothing. Regarding what I called the Machina Triangle--which is what you describe--that's the term I learned a good while back, but having searched for it recently, apparently Marschak has been retroactively given credit for doing it around 1950, and so it's mostly called the Marshak-Machina Triangle now (apparently people can't standardize on the spelling of "Marshak"). Hadn't heard Samuelson mentioned, but I'll look more specifically for that now. C RETOG 8(t/c) 17:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Machina wasn't speaking as if certain; my only real point was that he didn't say “Oh, that was I!” —SlamDiego&#8592;T 18:34, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a link to an article
Thought you might find this interesting Cretog8, Maybe it could make some interesting source material for one of the articles. It is called high-frequency trading — and it is suddenly one of the most talked-about and mysterious forces (or not so mysterious) forces, in the markets. Peace. skip sievert (talk) 20:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

History of economic thought -- section on Arrow
I have reworked History of economic thought. I'd appreciate a set of eyes on it, if you can spare them. In particular it may be necessary to expand the Arrow's theorem part again! I cut it back to reduce the formalisms and to give room for the other things Arrow has done. (Most of my work here is on technical articles so the formal aspects don't bother me, but I think History of economic thought is written for a broader audience—the technicalities about IIA and Pareto efficiency belong in Arrow's theorem, I think.)

Also I tried to break up the section, since it was essentially written as one giant paragraph.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Mises
Nice to see an economist on here. You tagged some of my articles (I studied economics and like to fancy myself an economist although I work in a different field) and I stumbled across your todo list. This part, User:Cretog8/Todo, caught my attention as I've noticed the proliferation of Mises links across Wikipedia and been unsure what to do about it, and how to handle Austrian Economics in general on Wikipedia. Also, for what little it's worth, I've always thought of Brookings and AEI as cut from the same cloth (and that cloth would be slightly tainted by advocacy). Hoover and Peterson (which sadly isn't referenced much on wikipedia) are two I'd reference without any qualms. --JayHenry (talk) 03:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's a draft of a note I was thinking of putting to the WikiProject Economics, but I haven't gotten to the point that I'm willing to follow-through on it, so it's still just a draft.


 * There's been a good amount of discussion on the Austrian school, here's some of the discussions from the project page (of varying politeness and insight): one two three four five six seven eight


 * At one point I was trying vigorously to trim Mises citations, but it's been a good while. One issue is that Mises gets over-cited partly because they're so good about putting their stuff online, I wish more stuff was like that. But that's no different than SSRN which gets heavily-cited even though they're unpublished working papers. My philosophy in looking at those links was that they had to be handled on a case-by-case basis. Some stuff Mises has up is just good material which they happen to be making available, so those are good and should stay. Likewise, if a reference to economic libertarian or Austrian views is warranted in an article, then a ref to Mises might be appropriate for that view. The problem is when refs to Mises are used to give the impression that some in-fact-radical view is somewhat mainstream. For that, my attitude is that if it's at all mainstream it can be referenced to a different source. If it can't be so ref'd, then it's probably heterodox, and should be treated as such (either presented with qualifications, or left out entirely).


 * You can search for references by doing this link search. If so, try to be thoughtful about it. There are thoughtful Austrian-sympathizers around. There's also frothing-at-the-mouth oddballs, and some libertarians who will happily cite both the Austrians and the Chicago school, even when they completely disagree on the analysis so long as the policy implications are to their liking. Oi. C RETOG 8(t/c) 21:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, you've hit the nail on the head. It's the availability.  A lot of times I'll find some Austrian nonsense in the history articles, but can't easily find a mainstream account of what happened.  Probably because all the good material is in textbooks and the authors don't want to lose the royalties (now there's a conspiracy theory about economists that's plausible!).  I wish I at least had access to the literature on crises, because it'd be a good start to get the "Fed caused every recession" stuff out of the articles on recessions (even in the Panic of 1907 it was a bit of a battle to get all the blame-the-Fed stuff out of there.  1907!).  Ah well... --JayHenry (talk) 01:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way, I'm thinking of running List of recessions in the United States through WP:FLC at some point. Need to do more research first, but do you have any thoughts to improve it, and any pointers for good sources?  I'm a bit surprised that there doesn't seem to be some authoritative "History of Recessions" text that just describes what happened in each US recession. --JayHenry (talk) 02:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Dealing with difficult editors
Hello Cretog8: I was wondering if you have any recommendations for dealing with Scribner. What would be an appropriate dispute resolution mechanism to try to move this article along? Any admins you would recommend that could arbitrate here?Farcaster (talk) 05:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I don't have much advice. Scribner's style, along with another editor, chased me away from participating in the Paul Krugman article. Protonk is an admin who's worked on economics articles in the past, and is very thoughtful. He might be able to help. C RETOG 8(t/c) 21:05, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe Scribner was the editor who I had a dispute with at WT:BLP over a related issue. See here and here (which are out of order on the archive page).  My only advice is to be neutral, calm and persistent.  I wish I could make it so that you didn't have to be persistent when dealing with certain editors, but that's the way of the world. Protonk (talk) 20:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of schools
*laugh* —SlamDiego&#8592;T 19:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Oi. It'll tell you something about what kind of an economist I am that I'm still not really sure what neoclassical economics is, and something about Wikipedia that I don't trust the articles here to clear it up for me. C RETOG 8(t/c) 20:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It's fair not to know what “neoclassical” means, as different writers use the term differently. I could here argue for a best use, but that's probably a tangent.  Anyway, my mental health requires that I accept that Wikipedia is just going to get a lot of social science (including economics) flat wrong, and not even remotely best under its own proclaimed criteria. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 20:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Heh, well Cretog, the statement doesn't tell us much... you could be a "saltwater" economist implying that neoclassical economics is incoherent, you could be a Chicago school-type who Paul Krugman called a neoclassicist and sees the classification as a meaningless attempt to lump you with a bunch of bad ideas you never agreed with anyways, you could be someone capable of appreciating lots of different insights without worrying which school gets to take credit if the insight proves useful, you could be a government economist who notes that nobody in Washington pays attention to economic journals anyways, you could wonder why these guys studied all this complex math to pick fights instead of get paid, etc... --JayHenry (talk) 20:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You have the “freshwater”/“saltwater” distinction turned-'round here. Krugman, near one of the oceans, is “saltwater”; the Chi-Town Kids, far from the sea, are “freshwater”. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 20:49, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course! --JayHenry (talk) 21:03, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Jay-I guess it doesn't tell you as much as I thought. Pretty much it means I'm lazy. C RETOG 8(t/c) 21:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Choloepus hoffmanni.jpg|thumb|left|[[User:Cretog8|Cretog8]] studies the taxonomy of economic schools]]


 * WalcottQuarry080509.jpg (talk) 02:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)]]

Hi, just dropped by to explain why I upped neoclassical economics from High to Top. Mainly, it's because, problematical though it is in many cases, it's as close as we have to a consensus framework in economics at this moment, especially if we restrict ourselves to micro-economics. Almost all our formal modeling is built on neo-classical foundations (rational utility maximization) of one type or another. However, I'm not averse to lowering the priority ratings of all meta-articles, as long as they are all lowered together. It's a funny world we live in if Austrian school were to have a higher priority rating than neoclassical economics. LK (talk) 18:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree w/ that rating change. Post on my talk page if you would like me to add some sourcing vis a vis neoclassical economics and its centrality to the discipline.  I'm working on a related article atm and I have some books handy. Protonk (talk) 20:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If these priorities were something respectable and respected, then only the basic concepts of economics should be assigned “Top” priority, not any school or collection of schools. But since the whole “priority” thing is a bit of a joke (with, for example, at least one editor both insisting that “Austrian School” is merely “Mid” priority, but not only ignoring “Top” and “High” articles to edit it, but just generally spending a disproportionate share of his over-all edits on it), it's a waste of time to seek anything but amusement in their revision. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 22:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (The article in question, though, could certainly use more attention from people who actually knew history of thought, and were pursuing a neutral PoV.  It was begun as infrastructure to push a PoV that rejects marginalism in favor of economics that draws principally upon Ricardo.  I cleaned-up part of the cartoon, but much remains.) —SlamDiego&#8592;T 00:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's actually unfortunately common that proponents of some school of thought come and push their POV all over Wikipedia, requiring editors who recognize it's lack of importance to focus their efforts cleaning it up. This clean-up effort would not really be much evidence of importance. --JayHenry (talk) 01:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * We have editors with important PoV, as well as editors with unimportant PoV, pushing on Wikipedia. In some sense, the Ricardian stuff is very important — Marx is an example, and Marxism was used to justify significant policies that greatly effected over a billion people. (No other school can tocuh that effect of Marxism.) But the importance of that PoV doesn't justify “stylized facts” in place of verifiable assertions. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 04:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a good point. I certainly wouldn't dare to argue that Marxism is unimportant.  I'm not much interested in importance rankings, but am concerned when extensive POV leaks into articles.  For example, all banking is "fractional-reserve banking", regardless of whether or not one believes it should be, but I stumbled across the article earlier tonight in sad, sad shape (it had just been temporarily altered and is since fixed).  This sort of thing is my concern. --JayHenry (talk) 01:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Really, we need articles that empower the reader's thinking, rather than guide it along preferred channels. (I don't want to run us too far on a tangent on Cretog8's talk page, but the opposition to partial reserve banking is typically an artefact of a commitment inconsistent with the other positions of the opponent. I'll discuss this on my own talk page if anyone wishes.) —SlamDiego&#8592;T 01:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


 * LK, if I overcome my "choloepus hoffmanni" enough to do a re-prioritizing of economics articles, I'll definitely push for meta articles to be downgraded. But I've found the recent talk page arguments to be unusually non-productive, in that I can't even understand what several of the parties are arguing. I'd just as soon not get involved in further such quarrels now. There is a very bold new editor hitting articles like Demand curve, Indifference curve, Diminishing returns and other such "core" material with mixed results, so I think any real attention I give to things soon should be to help filter those additions. (On a personal note, I've got a new baby and so am time-deprived, sleep-deprived, and unusually surly. But the kid's cute.)C RETOG 8(t/c) 03:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Congratz on the baby. If I can offer some personal advice, keep the TV off, don't show those supposed educational videos, like Baby Einstein etc. Research suggests that early TV exposure negatively affects intelligence and social engagement. Simple interactive toys are best. LK (talk) 07:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

RfC at WT:ECON
I've reformulated the proposed guidelines based on your and other's comments. I would appreciate it if you could have a look and further comment there. Thankyou, --LK (talk) 15:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Mediation for WikiProject Economics Guidelines
A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning WikiProject Economics Guidelines has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/WikiProject Economics Guidelines and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, LK (talk)

I'm sorry it's come to this, but edit warring continues on the project homepage. LK (talk) 07:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Sock and such
IMO, Skip has violated WP:CIVIL quite a few times in the last month. See for example, this and this, and also his interactions on Talk:Sustainability. However, given that I am deeply involved in the current dispute on the WP:ECON page, I'm not sure exactly how to proceed in this case. If you have any suggestions, I will gladly follow your lead.

AS
Hi, I do appreciate your coming to my defense, but I do think it's better if you self-revert the last comment. Thanks, LK (talk) 17:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Someone else can revert it-you can if you like. I'm sick today, and don't feel like playing nice. I didn't so much come to your defense as call a spade a spade as Skip has been fond of saying lately. C RETOG 8(t/c) 17:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to hear that. Take care with the baby and everything. As you no doubt know, if you run a fever, go to the doctor immediately, as the only flu going around right now is H1N1. Oh, and cuddle the baby more (when you are better that is). They grow up quick and don't like to be cuddled any more. :-( Best, LK (talk) 17:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the thoughts. I'm hoping/expecting that as unpleasant as today is, it will be gone by tomorrow. As for the baby, this is my second kid. My older son is 6 now, and we're lucky that he's still quite cuddly (on those occasions when he can hold still at all). No telling if kid #2 will be the same or not, but so far so good. O, and yeah, we've avoided the "enriching" videos. They offend me in many ways. The big kid still loves the video screen, but his primary interaction with it is playing Wii with his grandfather, so it has its up side also. C RETOG 8(t/c) 02:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:NPA
This was a personal attack. If you carry on with this kind of talk, you'll be blocked from editing. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Request
Do you know anyone who might be able to help out at List of recessions in the United States? I could really use just a careful read through from someone familiar with economics. I'm trying to get the article through the unrewarding featured list process. Unfortunately the reviewers at FLC seem to think it's not up to snuff with the usual fare like: Veronica Mars (season 2) or List of winners of the Mathcounts competition or List of characters in Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow. I don't need any help with research, just making sure it reads okay. --JayHenry (talk) 01:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I put out one solicitation for advice, and we'll see if it gets a bite. If not, I'll think about it again. Sorry it's being difficult, I'm very impressed by the list. C RETOG 8(t/c) 02:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/WikiProject Economics Guidelines
Hi there. Please refactor your statement so it's under the 250 word limit - it's simply going to get out of hand if anyone had more space than that given the number of parties. Kind regards,  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Drat! I'll see what I can do. C RETOG 8(t/c) 00:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out my apparently out-of-process edit to Ryan Postlethwaite. Oh, well, I now know a small bit more about how this process works. By the way, pace SlamDiego above, I deny that the article on Neoclassical economics has a Ricardian bias. I also created the aricle on Austrian economics, if I recall correctly. Did that ever have a Ricardian bias? -- RLV 209.217.195.174 (talk) 08:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no idea-things like Ricardian bias are generally invisible to me. C RETOG 8(t/c) 14:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Eh, I note that what I spoke of was infrastructure, rather than claiming that the article itself had a distinctly Ricardian bias. I'll labor the issue on my talk page if you wish; otherwise I'll not further disturb you on this point. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 05:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

may want to watch
Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents C RETOG 8(t/c) 15:00, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

List of Recessions in the U.S.
Hi Cretog8. I am flattered that you came to me for help with this article, but not only do I see nothing wrong with it at quick glance (looks very well-organized, well-cited), but I'm afraid I don't come to Wiki that often these days (the "semi-retired" banner is now placed prominently at the top of my talk page). That said, good luck with the FLC process! It's not as complicated as it appears, but every editor brings his own unique set of concerns to the table which he or she wants the nominator to address. I've done so many of these that I've developed a sort of "surprise fatigue" where I am no longer surprised at how any article that one nominates will fall far short of perfection in the eyes of the reviewers. Cheers.-- Pericles of Athens  Talk 23:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Your revert
Just so you know the IPs edit was true, and not vandalism :) Thanks for helping to fight vandalism though! C T J F 8 3  chat 18:28, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, that's embarrassing. Thanks for pointing out my mistake. C RETOG 8(t/c) 18:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * HAHA, Don't be embarrassed at all! I've done it dozens of times. Plus for someone that has never seen "Family Goy" it would look like vandalism. :) C T J F 8 3  chat 18:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

My Interests In Economics
In case you're curious about my point of view, here's a couple entries from my blog: http://robertvienneau.blogspot.com/2009/04/sociology-of-mainstream-and-non.html, http://robertvienneau.blogspot.com/2008/12/dont-say-there-must-be-something-common.html -- RLV 209.217.195.136 (talk) 08:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Notice
FYI:   The Four Deuces (talk) 22:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oi C RETOG 8(t/c) 22:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Academic credentials
I too noticed an anti-intellectual bias in some of the discussions at Wikipedia, which explains why I am not more active. A google search on Skip Sievert, if it is the same person, is revealing. Richard Tol (talk) 13:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

re: skip
I think a conduct RfC should happen before anything to do with Arbitration... but not yet, probably. Please keep me posted. Xavexgoem (talk) 03:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Oi, I have little hope for things getting better, but I could be surprised. Thanks. C RETOG 8(t/c) 04:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

In response to your question on my Talk page on this topic -- I don't know what happens next. Half of my answer was to Geronimo -- a lot of us aren't confident about our knowledge about economics. (To get an idea how we feel, have a look at my corner of Wikipedia: am I getting the geography of Ethiopia right? I'll admit that sometimes I am, & sometimes I'm not.) The other half was a very soft warning to Skip: he should take a break from these topics that are causing grief for everyone, or else something he won't like might happen. Some folks will respond positively to a gentle hint like that, some people will ignore it & head even faster to perdition -- & sometimes I'm completely off-base in my comments. Think of WP:AN/I similar to trying to mediate a fight amongst family members: you can't reason with them, you really can't make them sleep on the street -- but it's hard not to give in to that impulse to slug them once in a while. ;-) -- llywrch (talk) 05:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks. I think there's a misunderstanding of the nature of AN/I which has led to some frustrated editors. It's very difficult to see from his messages at the AN/I that he's taken any warning to heart, but there's always hope. C RETOG 8(t/c) 05:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for arbitration
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Requests for arbitration and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Requests for arbitration;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, The Four Deuces (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you think you can notify him. I will add a note at the Request whether Skipsievert has been served.  The Four Deuces (talk) 20:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Indeed
Ritz Crackers didn't exist in any day of his life. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 18:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Inflation Discussion
Thank you for the message. I don't have any history with making comments or adjustments to articles on Wikipedia and just officially signed up this last week. I just felt there was a glaring omission in the issues with measuring inflation section. I'd like for someone objective outside of the current parties to weigh in, I'll give it more time and see what happens. Inflationhawk (talk) 19:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You are very kindly invited to take part in the discussion on the Inflation talk page
You are very kindly invited to take part in the discussion on the Inflation talk page ongoing right now. Thank you.

PennySeven (talk) 20:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Please very kindly refrain from making people up against me as you did here

"Hello-Sorry I'm not taking part in the discussion at Talk:Inflation. I don't have an opinion yet as to the edits in question, but I wanted to let you know that the editor PennySeven has a history of antagonism on that article and its talk page."

with Inflationhawk.

It is very unkind of you. I regard it as a personal attack. I warn you that I will take this further if you do not stop with your divisive statements.PennySeven (talk) 21:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Economics census
Hello there. Sorry to bother you, but you are (titularly at least) a member of WP:WikiProject Economics, as defined by this category. If you don't know me, I'm a Wikipedia administrator, but an unqualified economist. I enjoy writing about economics, but I'm not very good at it, which is why I would like to support in any way I can the strong body of economists here on Wikipedia. I'm only bothering you because you are probably one of them. Together, I'd like us to establish the future direction of WikiProject Economics, but first, we need to know who we've got to help.

Whatever your area of expertise or level of qualification, if you're interested in helping with the WikiProject (even if only as part of a larger commitment to this wonderful online encyclopedia of ours), would you mind adding your signature to this page? It only takes a second. Thank you.

Message delivered on behalf of User:Jarry1250 by LivingBot.
 * Firstly, thank you for signing the census, and an apology to those who dislike posts such as this one for messaging you again in this way. I've now got myself organised and you can opt-out of any future communication at WP:WikiProject Economics/Newsletter. Just remove your name and you wonn't be bothered again.


 * Secondly, and most importantly, I would like to invite your comments on the census talk page about the project as a whole. I've given my own personal opinion on a range of topics, but my babbling is essentially worthless without your thoughts - I can't believe for one moment that everyone agrees with me in the slightest! :)


 * All your comments are welcomed. Thanks, - Jarry1250 [Humorous? Discuss.] 17:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Substing Welcome Templates
Just a quick note, can you make sure you subst welcome templates when you add them to a users talk page? Thanks =]  ·Add§hore·  T alk T o M e ! 19:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I'll try to remember, it's been a loooong time since I've done one, though... Anyway, thanks for the reminder if I missed it. C RETOG 8(t/c) 21:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Gift economy
We have an editor over at Gift economy who seems to despise the idea that there are aspects of modern culture that are like gift economies, and that people can be altruistically motivated to work together. (It's a mystery to me why he's contributing at Wikipedia.) He's been chopping away at the article and littering it with unsightly tags. Anyway, as someone who has contributed to the article, could you add it to your watchlist and voice your opinion if you have time? Thanks. LK (talk) 08:36, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello LK. I have it watch-listed, but haven't been able to manage any edits which require real thought for a while. I will try to put this in my mental queue, though. C RETOG 8(t/c) 18:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

financial transactions tax
hi Cretog8.

thanks for the guidelines on my help page. you obviously watch that article, so,

would it be helpful for the article to include a section an projected revenue. both for the US, then world, then different regions ? just my opinion, this has earmarks of being maybe a relatively painless world changing revenue source. if so, how could it be presented thanks, Crikwater (talk) 17:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello Crikwater- Sorry I'm slow in responding. That seems like a reasonable addition. It's not honestly an article I follow closely. Your additions didn't so much seem wrong as they were unsupported by reliable sources. So, the thing to do would be find good sources which talk about the potential revenue from such taxes, and then include information, being careful not to add your own analysis. C RETOG 8(t/c) 22:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

free market
I deleted the other text, because in the end, what is said here is simply stated better in other sections and keeping in mind what you said, I havent been able to rewrite it to any satisfaction. You are right about point of view, do give me a little time to write it out better. The opolies refers to monopoly, duopoly, triopoly can be explained, but you are right to question it, i dont think this article is the place to explain a term by an author. It could be replaced by monopolies or effective control of a market by very few players (though I worry I am simplifying his words too much). As for references it think its better to list the chapters where he discusses ogliopolies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shabidoo (talk • contribs) 04:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Prisoner's dilemma
Because the climate change example is a political hot potato I agree that it should not be part of the apolitical Prisoner's dilemma article, and I am glad that you removed it. But, if we can find a social or political example that is not a hot potato, I would like to include it. I think it would make the article stronger. Since your stated reason for the edit reversion was "original research" I guess I am asking you: if an example is sufficiently obviously true (and sufficiently apolitical, etc.), will you accept it even if there is no citation to back it up? Quantling (talk) 13:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the best bet is to find something referenced. If it's referenced and still controversial, it can still be used but attributed to the source. If it's uncontroversial, it can be used straight.
 * I don't find the climate change example very convincing for this reason: In a standard prisoner's dilemma, participants would welcome a binding agreement forcing everyone to cooperate. That hasn't happened with climate change, in spite of opportunities, which makes me believe there are other forces at least as important. C RETOG 8(t/c) 17:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't find the climate change example very convincing for this reason: In a standard prisoner's dilemma, participants would welcome a binding agreement forcing everyone to cooperate. That hasn't happened with climate change, in spite of opportunities, which makes me believe there are other forces at least as important. C RETOG 8(t/c) 17:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Scratchpad # 6
Hi, C. Just chanced on the above. A daunting subject alright, but I was surprised at how Google Scholar made it seem at least slightly doable at and . --Thomasmeeks (talk) 00:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Gold Standard
Don't know if it will help, but I've requested semi-protection for the article in hopes it will put our IP editor to make use of the talk page, rather than ignore the comments of everyone who is reverting them. Ravensfire ( talk ) 14:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'm thinking of asking for a block, given both the abuse given to other editors and the ongoing WP:OR troubles which don't seem to be solved by discussion, but I don't like to deal with WP bureaucracy. C RETOG 8(t/c) 21:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks - good call on the ANI post. I was ready to post a 3RR report if he'd reverted one more time, but he somehow resisted that.  Nice to see some action from your request!  Ravensfire ( talk ) 14:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Karmaisking
I see that you just filed a sockpuppet investigation for this user. At this time, this case will not be flagged for attention because the case is not tagged properly. I would file for you, but I don't know if your asking for a CU request or not, and the evidence is yours to present. I will be reverting that edit for now, if you could please submit a case following these instructions, then we will get to your case ASAP. -- DQ  (t)  (e)  12:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the pointer. I also don't know if I need a CU or not, there's just this banned editor who makes socks as a form of trolling... I guess I should learn this process eventually. C RETOG 8(t/c) 12:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)