User talk:Rinconsoleao

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place  before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

And don't forget, the edit summary is your friend. :) – Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 14:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!! --Rinconsoleao 17:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

!! Help!! I tried to classify the page "dynamic stochastic general equilibrium" as a member of the category "macroeconomics and monetary economics". But instead, what shows up is "Category: economics"! Does anybody know how to do this right?
 * Hi there! What you need to use is square brackets Nerwen 08:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow... 14 minutes from question to solution!! Thanks... all I can say is: Wikipedia is amazing!! --Rinconsoleao 08:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Foundations of Economic Analysis
Well, the article and Talk page are on my Watchlist, so separate notice is unnecessaary (though I appreciate the offer). -- Thomasmeeks 15:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I've addressed your allegations
I addressed your allegations. See the talk page for Applied Information Economics

Also, I did not undo all of your changes, but I did a couple along with an offer to discuss the changes on either of our talk pages or the Applied Information Economics page. I commented on some changes without undoing them. You might find I'm very reasonable.Hubbardaie 03:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Applied Information Economics page
I appreciate your comments. Since you clearly spend a lot of time on economics related articles, perhaps you could moderate the "limitations" section. I cannot make major changes to the article with my COI, as I've disclosed in the discussion page. When I read the comments made by Pgreenfinch, it is clear that he is talking about something entirely different from AIE. As I said in the discussion page of AIE. He is talking about something more macroeconomic and descriptive, not normative decision models like AIE. If you agree, please remove that limitation section. I'm entirely open to the idea of adding limitations and removing the NPOV tag, but the limitations discussed should at least be about the topic of the article. Thanks in advance for any assistance.Hubbardaie 13:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to help, but I am much less informed about decision theory than about economics, so I can't judge what the limitations of AIE may be. We should wait for a neutral informed party to come along. --Rinconsoleao 13:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You seem to be occupied with deleting references to AIE. Actually, when I first created the article, it had none.  Then someone added an "orphan" tag to it and I got on the ball and made several references.  Now it swings back the other way.  I'm not surprised there are varying opinions on the relevance of various references for any article.  Perhaps we should discuss if you think there should be any references by other articles to AIE at all and, if so, what those would be.Hubbardaie 19:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ouch, I hadn't thought of that, I can certainly see why you feel pushed both ways. But the reason the situation arose in the first place is that you wrote an article on your own invention, instead of waiting for it to have sufficient public impact that someone else would do it for you. I want you to understand that from the description, your method sounds very interesting and sensible to me. But since decision theory is not my field, I don't know how important, influential, successful, and original your method is (if I did, I would probably write the article myself). The reason I discovered your method is that I came across extremely prominent, non-neutral mentions of it in two pages on topics I am reasonably well informed about (Monte Carlo methods and Information Economics, by which I understand a key subfield of microeconomics). Monte Carlo methods, for example, are a huge field applied across physical sciences, mathematics, and statistics--- just look at the applications list. The vast majority have nothing at all to do with decision theory, and therefore methods like "CPA" can't possibly have anything to do with those applications. Therefore it's obviously inappropriate to mention your method in the introduction of the article as an improvement of the "basic MC method", or to devote a whole section to your method immediately after the list of applications. It would be misleading for anyone to mention it so prominently, when it is unrelated to most of the material in the article, and it is especially inappropriate for the person promoting the method to have done so while using normative words like "improvement". Once I discovered those two mentions of your method, I searched for it on all pages, and found it again and again prominently mentioned, and always stated in an non-neutral way ("improvement", "more robust", "advanced", etc.) I cannot see how those edits could fail to violate Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. I will obviously not object if at some point in the future other users begin to comment on AIE. But please don't take that job into your own hands. I.e., be very patient. --Rinconsoleao 20:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll concede your point on both the Monte Carlo and Information Economics articles with a caveat. There are very specific, albiet narrower, uses of those terms where the reference to AIE is entirely appropriate.  In retrospect, I can see where it didn't make sense to mention AIE in the intro of the Monte Carlo article.  But if it ever discusses any use of it in a decision theory sense (and I think the article is incomplete if it doesnt address decision analysis applications) then it would make sense to reference AIE.
 * As it happens, I didn't delete the reference to AIE in Monte Carlo method, I just moved it and gave it a more neutral title. --Rinconsoleao 21:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

In regards to Information Economics, I've written extensively in the discussion of that article asking for some disambiguation. Its an entirely muddled grouping of different uses of the term that really have little to do with each other. Its all in the discussion. I claim that AIE is relevant only to two of those specific uses of the term. First the application of the various game/decision theory approaches for computing the value of information in specific decisions under uncertainty. AIE, as the name implies, is literally an application of that theory. Also, the term "information economics" (I think I mentioned before) was used for the name of a popular weighted scoring method used by IT managers in the 1990's. Some might think the article alludes to that since it mentions IT. I assure you that the difference between that approach an anything that won a Nobel is night and day. I developed AIE partly in response to that method and that is another potential reference for AIE. But, as you suggested, I'll leave it to others to make that connection. Hubbardaie 21:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that there should be disambiguation. I left a note on the WikiProject Economics page, fishing for a user who knows enough both about microeconomic theory and about management methods to do the job well. If nobody shows up in the near future, I might try it myself. --Rinconsoleao 21:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Foundations
Hi, Rinconsoleao. I gave away my copy (prematurely as it happens), but pagination in the Enlarged ed. is the same as in the 1st ed. There's just an added intro and appendices. Have only glanced at your Edit but am not be inclined to revert, period, or unless there was nothing worth saving. Programming occurs only in a new appendix (old stuff by then). --Thomasmeeks 15:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanx!! --Rinconsoleao 15:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: “Questions and comments about marginal utility...”
Replies given. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 02:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Applied Information Economics
You seem to be active in the economics area, so I'm seeking your opinion and help. The subject article is linked to from the Economics article and from Template:Economics. AIE is a technique for use in evaluating information technology buying decisions. It seems to be not much more than a commercial product of a small company operated out of a residence in Glen Ellyn, Illinois, USA. (Company web site HERE. The technique doesn't seem to be very widely used, yet it appears alongside several foundation techniques in economics. I don't think it belongs in the Economics article or the template, but I'm hesitant to meddle in subject areas where I've had no training. Could you look at this situation and fix it? DCLawyer 13:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you! My impression is that the AIE method is a valid idea, but you are right, it's the commercial product of one little-known consulting firm. Links directly from Economics and Template:Economics are completely inappropriate, on Wikipedia's criteria of "notability", so I removed them. --Rinconsoleao 11:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Berkeley Electronic Press

 * See Articles for deletion/Berkeley Electronic Press. Anthony Appleyard 12:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

National accounts
Hi, Rinconsoleao. Well, you've been busy. As per the Talk page of National accounts, do you still favor the merge proposal? If not, one of us could take it down. Thx. --Thomasmeeks 13:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, again. I put up some elaboration of my earlier point today at Talk:National accounts. If you still believe that if is better to merge, I believe that you ought to respond to comments there.  I will take your not responding there as an indication that it is not a live proposal.  On neither of the relevant Talk pages does there seem to be a consensus for merger. The fact that the merge template is down for the NIPA article also sumpports this interpretation.  Thx.  --Thomasmeeks 11:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:PROD and New Economics vs New Classical Macroeconomics
Page histories need to be kept, which is why you need to use WP:RM to move pages. Please don't PROD copy-paste moves. 132.205.44.5 21:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It would be helpful if you had a username I could correspond with! I still think New Economics should be deleted, rather than being turned into a redirect to New Classical Macroeconomics. 'New Economics' is not, as far as I know, a synonym for 'New Classical Macroeconomics', but redirecting from the former to the latter might give the false impression that Wikipedia regards them as synonyms. In fact, I'm not aware of any standard meaning for 'New Economics'. I left a query on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Economics to see if anyone else knows a meaning for that term. --Rinconsoleao 16:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * You cannot delete a page because it is misnamed, you have to move a page using the WP:RM process. A copy-paste move is explicitly prohibited by WikiPedia policies. Please use the requested move process at WP:RM in future if you wish to rename a page. The reason that this is explicitly prohibited is that WikiPedia requires that edit histories be maintained. Your copypaste move breaks the link to the page history. If you wish to delete the resultant redirect, you can request that at the same time as you request the move, or you can subsequently request a delete at WP:RFD, as WP:PROD is not supposed to be used on redirects. 132.205.44.5 22:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Note that the page history has been fixed through the WP:SPLICE administrative clean-up process. 132.205.44.5 22:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Cobweb9.png
Thank you for uploading Image:Cobweb9.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 22:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The neoclassical school of economics
Is there a particular reason you deleted this from Deflation? Is not a school of economic by this name exists? (shool meaning school of thought)

Is it not based on Kaines school of economics?

Sorry I am not an expert but just remember from my business school. Igor Berger (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The paragraph said deflation was impossible according to neoclassical economics. That's not correct. According to neoclassical economics, a large decrease in the money supply will cause deflation. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes you are correct! Impossible is not the word. Sorry I did not notice that. If I still remember it is supose to say that the markets can be cotroled through monetory policy, but not imposible to have deflation. Thank you for the explanation. Igor Berger (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Inflation/Deflation
I've added deflation to my watchlist, in addition to the already-watched inflation.  Bullfish  18:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Good idea in todays society.  WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN   it seems the winds have stopped...  22:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Commenting.
Don't insert comments in a way that breaks the comments of other editors into unsigned blocks of text in the discussion; insert your reply after the signature of the other editor. Don't insert comments in a way that cause the auto-numbering of comments to be trashed-out. It is trivial to refer to number comments by their numbers. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 21:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Those are valid points Slam. But it's also trivial to read comments in order by using 'history', and some users (at least one I can vouch for) prefer to read related comments next to each other. By the way, is it really necessary to make a suggestion like this in the imperative tense? --Rinconsoleao (talk) 09:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Necessary, no; desirable, yes. You turned the previous discussion into a rat's nest (which is a very large part of the reason that the present discussion is now under way).  There's no excuse for your starting to do that again. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 17:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: Deleted links
The links were deleted because they are repeated twice in the article; for some, three times. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN  it seems the winds have stopped...  18:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't really matter I suppose.  WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN   it seems the winds have stopped...  18:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Destruction of inflation effects etc
Risconsoleao, the IP user editing these article with "real value of monetary" etc is also known as User_talk:Herbou and several other sockpuppets, all being the author at realvalueaccounting.com, aka Nicolas Smith (sp?). There is a conflict of interest and a chequered history here.--Gregalton (talk) 12:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info!! --Rinconsoleao (talk) 12:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Much thanks to you for being constructive with him. I'm hoping it works out better this time.--Gregalton (talk) 17:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Needing third opinion
Can you help us (with your "third opinion") into a definition with coordination problem base (origined from here)? --Krauss (talk) 13:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Stagflation
Please compare the current section regarding the dilemma aspect of stagflation to the two paragraphs I recently reproduced in the Discussion section (drawn from the 17 Dec 07 version) of the article. I find the earlier version far clearer, although the History will show that I attempted to edit the existing version.ExecTaxes (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * My friend, each time I return to the page I am happier with the language that we put together at the top of the section.ExecTaxes (talk) 15:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Metropolis-Hastings algorithm
Hi Rinconsoleao

You mention in your article that it is desirable to have an acceptance rate of about 60%. I was just picturing a distribution with a very flat surface in which case it may be difficult to ever achieve an acceptance rate low as 60%. Isn't that percentage relative to the shape of P(x)?

Relating to criteria of convergence, could you give some hint in conceptual terms on how to practicably determine by when "the initial state has been forgotten"?

Regards, Harri-hoodi (talk) 11:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it's really not my article. I just tried to clarify the discussion a little bit. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 09:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Requesting your input at WikiProject Economics/Featured Article drive
Since you are a member of WikiProject Economics, I would like to direct your attention to WikiProject Economics/Featured Article drive. We are currently deciding on an economics-related article to bring to Featured Article status and we would like your input. Thanks! Gary King ( talk ) 15:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Lucas critique
Hi there. I saw that your recent edit to Lucas critique added back a contraction ("doesn't") that I previously removed. I didn't revert your edit, but I did replace "doesn't" with "does not", per Wikipedia's Manual of Style, specifically MOS which says: "In general, the use of contractions—such as don't, can't, won't, they'd, should've, it's—is informal and should be avoided; however, contractions should be left unchanged when they occur in a quotation." This is just a heads up, no big deal. Thanks. -FrankTobia (talk) 16:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Diamond-Dybvig

 * Thanks! I hope to add more to it soon... --Rinconsoleao (talk) 09:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for improving the wording the brief summary of Diamond-Dybvig in Bank run. However, I noted some technical problems with the recent changes, which I commented on at Talk:Bank run. Eubulides (talk) 16:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Question
Hello again, Rinconsoleao. I see that the earlier history of Public economics (now renamed "Public sector economics") going back years is missing. I could conjecture, but do you know what happened to produce that result? I'll look for your answer here. Thanks. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 15:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no idea. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 07:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Lost and found per Talk:Public sector economics. I was thinking (wrongly) that you might have edited "Public economics" (last seen at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Public_economics&oldid=169168015, mistaking that for your edits of Public finance. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 16:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

HJB -- reference on sufficiency
Dear Rinconsoleao,

The page reference for Bertsekas' book is P111, Chapter 3, Section 3.2, with a gray box that starts with "Proposition 3.2.1: (Sufficiency Theorem) Suppose $$V(t,x)$$ is a solution ..." , under the assumption of a fixed end time T.

The HJB article, at the time when I first looked at it, did not seem to be too particular about mathematical rigor, which is fine with me because I would go to such a page to get "the rough idea" and references. That's why I added the "derivation" part and the "necessary and sufficient" part, even though I am no expert on this. -- Someone will clean this up, because it's Wikipedia, right?

Thanks,

Lambertch (talk) 22:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Scratched head
That certainly needed doing. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 07:16, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Question
Hi, I noticed you've been interested in editing articles on the subject of Keynesian economics. I just noticed that we have two separate articles: Neo-Keynesian economics and New Keynesian economics. It appears to me that the latter spelling receives the most Google hits (in addition to Google Books & Google Scholar). Therefore, I think that the Neo-Keynesian economics article should be merged into the New Keynesian economics page. What do you think? They appear to be about the same subject, as I can't seem to find any difference between the two. Khoikhoi 02:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Many people distinguish the two. Neo-Keynesian economics referred to a lot of extensions of the Keynesian framework especially back in the 1970s (and I don't claim to be an expert on it). New Keynesian economics refers to the contemporary integration of Keynesian microfoundations such as sticky prices and monopolistic competition into dynamic stochastic general equilibrium models. It is now the main stream of macroeconomic modelling for applied policy-making contexts such as central banks. Therefore from a contemporary standpoint, New Keynesian economics is more important than Neo-Keynesian economics, but from a historical standpoint I think it would be good to keep separate pages on the two. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 09:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Unions & philips curve
Ok, I'll concede. Larklight (talk) 19:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

WP:AfD
Hi. I noticed you added an AfD notice here but didn't create the relevant page on Articles for deletion/Budget advocacy. Articles for deletion is where people achieve a consensus on the state of an article but in order for that to happen it should be listed on WP:AfD. -- Menti  fisto  10:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Please read the instructions on how to nominate an article for deletion. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 15:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for directing me to the right instructions. But are you saying I should follow those instructions now, or did I already screw up the process so badly that I should just leave the AFD page as it is? --Rinconsoleao (talk) 15:23, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * In order for this to count, you have to get everything set-up as if you had followed the established protocol, whether you do this by backing-up and starting-over, or hack-away to get the nomination properly formatted and listed. I don't know which you would find easiest to do. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 00:58, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks as if, one way or another, you have everything in good order now. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 01:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Rinconsoleao!!
The article  on the Keynesian Resurgence doesn't seem to be bringing out the best in you. If you review your contributions in an objective frame of mind Id hope you agree they don't reflect your other wise excellent contributions to Wikki. Unlike say historians, we don't seem to have that many good economists here! So maybe you could stay away from the article and use your energies to contribute elsewehre.

The articles on the Keynesian Resurgence has been quoted and linked to hundreds, possibly of thousands of time and is a source of hope to many people in these stressful times. So while normally Id prefer to give ground so as not to upset other folks feelings, im not prepared to do so in this case.

If you still wish to carry on collaborating with me on the article, please:

1) Stop the insults, such as i) suggesting Im ignorant,   ii) repeatedly suggesting I derive my opinions just from Newspapers   iii)  falsely accusing me of misreporting sources, which given the simplicity  of the NYT articles is close to suggesting Im either dishonest or incompetent.

2)Cease making batches of changes in quick succession _ Im sorry to say I find most of your analyses entirely spurious,  and given the way you seem to interpret sources relevant to the resurgence Im not inclined to have my time taken up clearly proving  you've somehow reached conclusions quite the opposite  of the source.  Preferably Id like you not to make any more changes to the main article at all, until we've reached some kind of understanding, presently some of the changes seem bizarre.

3) If your'e going to argue with my positions, which I've supported by both the quality financial press and academic papers ,  please stop doing so based purely on the authority of your own opinion.   You may well be  (or have been) a serious player in the academic world, but Wikki is about verifiability.  Please cite a source, even on the discussion page,  and please also include a quote that sums of the point your using the source to support.   I don't want to waste my time reading another paper to find its actually making a point almost the opposite of what you claim!

If you cant agree with this, Im probably going to have to ask for a third party to give a balanced opinion. I guess it would have to be an admin, allthough I consider creotog to be very well balanced, or Id accept any decision from NJGW. Im sorry to say im finding your edits on the article I created to be disruptive, impolite, against the spirit of Wikki,  and very much against our mission to provide the public with  clear, accurate and verifiable information. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * With some regret i've reverted the changes you made to the article this morning, for reasons relating to the above and as explained on the articles talk page.  I thought as I felt the need to be a lot more critical than Im happy with, Id discuss mainly on your talk page where you're at liberty to delete whatever you wish. Let me know if you want to talk only on the article page.    Im cool  if you wish  to add back the current event tag.  Also if you wish you can delete the entire  'Keynesian Reformation'  section.    IMO that the event is happening is indisputable,  but I accept the term  Reformation could be classed as OR or a Neo. we can capture whats currently happening in Accademia later once its been properly assessed by the journals.  If you want to make any other edits to the main article Im asking you seek consensus first.   FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the more thoughtful responses.  I've made another edit, keeping your changes to Criticism,  the current tag and the cite tag on prominent Keynesian economists. As said Im happy if you wish to delete the entire academia section.    Im glad you've identified that you specifically object to the adjective Keynesian being used as if its factual.  I no longer consider the objection absurd, but I still cant accept it.


 * From my POV, the change you want is analogous  to changing a statement such as   "Irish singer Andrea Corr"   to  "Andrea Corr,  who the press has argued is Irish"  .    It detracts from clarity and falsely suggests that there's reasonable doubt when none exists.    The sources show politicians,  economists,  and journalists from most highly regarded financial broadsheets referring to the fiscal stimuli as Keynesian.  Keynes has a lot of detractors  - if there was any doubt that solutions are Keynesian then likely you'd be able to find a significant source saying so.  But despite the many sources I and others have  provided, you haven't offered one to support your contention.  I hope you can see my position that it would be POV pushing to continue to try and edit the article as though there is any doubt about the Keynesian character of the stimulus plans. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process&#32; because of the following concern:
 * does not appear to be particularly notable, at this stage at least

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.  DJR  ( T ) 13:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Welfare cost of business cycle
I agree with your points - feel free to move the article to "Welfare cost of business cycle". And if you can expand it, please do!radek (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Personal attack
Remarks such as “your characteristically grandiloquent, yet inaccurate and unfocused ad hominem attack” are themselves personal attacks. Restoring personal attacks is itself a violation of WP:NPA. I will presume that your restoration and endorsement of the personal attack as “reasonable” results from a sloppy reading, rather than being willful. I'd already commented to the attacker (on the IP talk page) that if he had worthwhile commentary, then it could be provided without the personal attack. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 17:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I'd welcome the opportunity to reply to his comments stripped of the personal attack. But it's not worth the cost of being used as a punching bag to show that the remaining claims aren't particularly reasonable. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 19:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * By 'grandiloquent', he probably meant your tendency to use uncommon, sophisticated language. And since his criticism related to the inaccessible style of the article, it is perfectly on point. Perhaps he could have found a gentler way of stating it, but I don't see a personal attack there. I see commentary on your style of writing. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 07:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That's hardly the meaning of “grandiloquent”, and it's hardly plausible that he would misuse the word in such a manner given the expression in which it participates. Again, it's a plain violation of WP:NPA, and its restoration is likewise a violation of WP:NPA.  If you want to counsel the editor on how to express his points without personal attack, feel free.  Again, I would welcome the opportunity to show that the remainder of the criticism doesn't hold water.  But restoring the original comments placed you in violation of WP:NPA. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 07:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Ummm... seems you wrote that comment while I was restoring it again. I really don't understand your complaint. I am not attacking you. Like the editor (or sock puppet, personally I don't know how to detect them) whose comments you deleted, I would just like to see the introductory parts of the Marginal utility article written in a more accessible style. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 07:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, restoring a violation of WP:NPA is a violation of WP:NPA. You can assert that you just want to see the introductory parts of “Marginal utility” written more accessibly, but you are not just making that point when you restore the personal attack. There simply isn't any excuse. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 07:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Please do not delete the comments, and please assume good faith on my part. I assume you want Marginal utility to be a high-quality article, which is the same thing I want. I was not attacking you when I restored the comments. I restored them because in my eyes they make a valid criticism of the article, and included some very useful points like a list of definitions of marginal utility from the web. The editor called your writing 'grandiloquent'; similarly you called my reading 'sloppy' (or worse, a willfull misinterpretation). Should I take that as a personal attack? I would prefer just to try to reason with each other, and with the editor whose comments you deleted. I would have let the deletion stand if I had clearly seen a personal attack in there, but I still don't. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 07:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have repeatedly noted that the comments could be restated without personal attack, yet you have ignored that point. Further, you are presently trying to get the personal attack restored by proxy.  WP:AGF simply won't shield you in this behavior.
 * Perhaps you should review WP:NPA; there is no violation of it in noting that the explanation to your restoring a personal attack was either in having made a sloppy reading of it or in willfully restoring an attack, nor was there a violation of WP:NPA in chosing to assume good faith and thus assume that the reading was sloppy.
 * You might also review WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. No objective editor would have difficulty in seeing the personal attack in such expressions as “your characteristically grandiloquent, yet inaccurate and unfocused ad hominem attack”, and you're unlikely to get a sympathetic treatment by refusal to acknowledge that if this moves to a complaint against you. (It is on the cusp of doing so.) —SlamDiego&#8592;T 08:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I fail to understand why you believe the editor who referred to your response as 'grandiloquent' was making a personal attack. I agree that your characterization of my reading as 'sloppy' was not a personal attack either. Both seem to me reasonable attempts to describe the other's editing behavior in order to get closer to a decision about how and whether (or not) to change the article.
 * Since you have not been convinced by my argument that the sentence with the word 'grandiloquent' was not offensive, would you object to my restoring all the comments except that sentence? --Rinconsoleao (talk) 08:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, refusal to get the point is not helpful.
 * Yes, I would object; the remarks that I specifically cited aren't the only violation of WP:NPA. I do think that you're capable of removing all of the personal attack; it doesn't matter a whole lot to me whether the anon does that or you do it for him.  Just remove all the personal attack.  But, setting aside his theories of editor motives, the anon is founding his criticism on mistakes that we went over years ago.  Eliminate those mistakes, and all that it left is “Gee, it would be good if this were more accessible.”  Not a new point. —SlamDiego&#8592;T 09:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Our disagreement about how to write the introduction to Marginal utility has nothing to do with mistakes. I am aware that the types of definitions of marginal utility offered by many economics textbooks, dictionaries, and webpages are not fully general. But I would disagree with the idea of attempting to achieve a fully general definition in the first paragraph (let alone the first sentence). There is nothing incorrect (no mistake) in starting from a simpler definition, as long as one makes clear that the definition is not fully general. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 10:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Our present disagreement may not be based upon mistakes about the concept of marginal utility (though you are certainly mistaken about policy on ledes), but (just as I said) his criticisms are founded in mistakes. Since you posted a redaction of his comments, I have pointed-out those mistakes which were immediately obvious (which are more than enough). —SlamDiego&#8592;T 11:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Chicago economists
Following that nice work we did on Template:Keynesians, I now need your help for the restructuring of Template:Chicago school economists. Could you please cast a glance at this template? --bender235 (talk) 18:31, 25 July 2009 (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 if you are one of those editors 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 won'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.] 18:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

For my own personal use (and to increase my own Utility)
The key steps in resolving the debates on the Marginal utility page seem to have been these:

LK's edit:

SD's objection:

SD's version of LK's edit:

Subsequent changes by JQ:


 * Note that JQ replaced 'amount available' by 'consumption'. Since 'marginal utility' is not necessarily defined at the endowment, it seems to me that JQ is right.

Subsequent changes by BH:

Rinconsoleao (talk) 14:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Matching theory (macroeconomics)
"lead needs to clarify definition, not just use"
 * the usage was there int he lead, but te definition was not srong.(Lihaas (talk) 16:44, 3 January 2011 (UTC)).

Re: Cobweb diagrams
AH, of course. Better now? - Jarry1250 [Who? Discuss.] 12:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Agent (economics)
Rinconsoleao,

If I'm reading the revision history correctly (it's my first time diving in there) you are the originator of the present definition in the first section of Agent (economics). It's a great definition, one many of us use on a daily basis, but I now must find a "scholarly" reference for the definition. Yikes. Any suggestions? Thanks.

DaveDixon (talk) 20:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Arg sup, arg inf
Hi Rinconsoleao,

thank you for your help in Mathematical optimization. I do not know the difference between Arg sup/inf and arg max/min. I thought they were synonyms. If there's a difference, would you mind to explain it in Arg max, or just explain it to me, so that I can edit Arg max? You can answer right here, on your own talk page. Thank you. Paolo.dL (talk) 14:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The min is the smallest value in a set. The inf is the greatest lower bound on the set. Frequently the two are the same, but in tricky cases there is a sup even if the max fails to exist. The relation between max and sup is analogous. Examples:


 * minimize $$y=x^2+5$$ by choosing x in $$-1\leq x\leq 1$$. In this case the min is y=5 at the arg min x=0. Also the inf is y=5, at the arg inf x=0.


 * minimize $$y=x^2+5$$ by choosing x in $$1< x\leq 2$$. In this case the min and the arg min do not exist because you would like to choose x=1, but that's not in the choice set. In this case the inf is 6, which is the largest number less than or equal to $$x^2+5$$ for all x in $$1< x\leq 2$$.


 * Unfortunately in this second example, I'm not sure whether it's technically correct to say that the arg inf is 1, or that the arg inf is undefined. Rinconsoleao (talk) 10:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Summarizing: arg inf and arg sup are not synonyms for arg min and arg max, but in the cases when they fail to be equivalent I am not sure whether arg inf and arg sup are well-defined. Help appreciated (therefore I will move this to the Arg sup page. Rinconsoleao (talk) 11:07, 19 July 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) 07:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Economics Barnstar
Thanks, Thomas, much appreciated! Rinconsoleao (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * So glad your still around, R. I'd say first non-WP things thing first, but that might suggest an expectation of more WP edits. That might or might not happen.  If it's the former, it should never be a chore.  In any case, you've done a lot for Econ. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of CREI


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on CREI requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, 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, you can place a request here. War (talk) 07:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)