User talk:Ralpherns

Your article La Función de Consumo
Welcome, and thank you for contributing the page La Función de Consumo to Wikipedia. While you have added the page to the English version of Wikipedia, the article is not in English. We invite you to translate it into English. It currently has been listed at Pages Needing Translation, but if it is not translated within two weeks, the article will be listed for deletion. Thank you. Jinkinson  talk to me  16:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Your contributed article, La Función de Consumo


Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, La Función de Consumo. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Consumption function. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Consumption function – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Consumption function
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding. The thread is Wikipedia's policy regarding self-published books.The discussion is about the topic Consumption function. Thank you. bender235 (talk) 21:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Ralpherns. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Consumption function, you may have a conflict of interest. People with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, see the conflict of interest guideline and frequently asked questions for organizations. In particular, please:


 * avoid editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, its competitors, or projects and products you or they are involved with;
 * instead, propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the template);
 * avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
 * exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing, and autobiographies. Thank you. Woodroar (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Woodroar, how should I post a new very important economic theory development that was presented to the economic community through this book? How should I post something that many commercial and university's editing companies denied publishing arguing that, in present economic crisis situation, they could not publish it if the author was not a very well-known one or the author did not grant the selling of five hundred copies of it? How could I present this economic theory improvement without a bit of self mentioning if I am the one who developed the theory and the one who created the mathematical workarounds to solve the important problems that prevented Friedman, Modigliani and many others from using it in the real world economic policy developments? My point of view on the economic theory presented tries to be as eclectic and neutral as possible, just presenting the new formula there. What would have Keynes done in life if he had had to introduce his economic thoughts in Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralpherns (talk • contribs) 00:46, 29 November 2015
 * I believe that you misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia. We are not here to publish original thought, promote new theories, or even just list facts about things, whether those facts end up being true or simply your opinion. What we do here is summarize what reliable and reputable sources have already published. And that means that Wikipedia will generally reflect mainstream understanding on subjects, to the point where we often exclude fringe and novel ideas.
 * And then there's the issue with your conflict of interest. I'm going to be perfectly frank here: even if your book gets peer-reviewed and published and gains traction within the economics press, you should not add it here, especially when you stand to benefit financially from a link to Amazon. Let someone interested in the subject add it, without any prompting from you. We take conflicts of interest very seriously here, and continuing to promote your book on Wikipedia is a surefire means to get yourself permenently blocked.
 * I hope this helps understand why we do the things we do. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. And please remember to sign your comments on Talk pages with 4 tildes ( ~ ). Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 01:16, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Woodroar, I would understand Wikipedia's position long time ago, when commercial or university editors were looking to publish books depending on the quality of its content instead of the commercial results of its publishing. But since a few years things have changed a lot and I can tell you that, at least in my field, no answer from any of all the inquired editors had something to do with economic theory but all were mere incredible commercial answers. So, nowadays, if you are not a world-wide-known university professor or you do not accept to buy at least five hundred books of your own title, you are out of the book market. Regarding the possibility of publishing my book by pieces, I tried to contact several economic magazines and, with the exception of one managed by Prof. Barro, who were criticized in my work, and who denied the publication in very nonsense arguments, all the others denied any possibility of publication based only on the same commercial reasons. Said so, you can imagine that when you tell me that you base your publishing decisions on the mainstream understanding of the economic theory, I am afraid that such decision will keep a lot of many good economists and important economic theory improvements out of such current mainstream understanding for a lot of years. And to depend on commercial reasons is something that I thought Wikipedia would never do. In any case, if you finally decide to keep my ideas out of the mainstream this way, I think that the post I created could be fully erased, because what remains there makes nonsense when you do not explain why the theory from Keynes, Friedman, Modigliani, Brumberg, etcetera, is not right anymore.ralpherns (talk) ~
 * I think you'll find that most editors consider our policies and guidelines to be just as important today as they ever have been. The alternative is an encyclopedia inundated with articles about perpetual motion machines and cold fusion reactors and cancer cures and explanations for dark matter that are all "totally true, I swear!", it's just The Man wants to keep them secret. You may find our essay on "Verifiability, Not Truth" helpful as it explains the relationship between our Verifiability and Neutral Point of View policies. I hope this helps. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 16:17, 6 December 2015 (UTC)