User talk:WeakTrain

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. Here are a few good links for old- and newcomers alike: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian. Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome.
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

P.S. I hope that my including at the top a template that I myself continue to make regular use of is OK. If not, just delete it. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 23:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the welcome, Thomasmeeks! WeakTrain (talk) 00:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:After Dark 2.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:After Dark 2.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status and its source. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously.

If you did not create this work entirely yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. You will also need to state under what licensing terms it was released. Please refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file.

Please add this information by editing the image description page. If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is [ a list of your uploads]. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 03:47, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Eeekster, I added this information using a template I found elsewhere--hopefully this resolves the issue. WeakTrain (talk) 04:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Non-notable entries
Hello, WeakTrain. I've noticed your trimming down of this list. Removing non-notable items from templates is a good idea in general, but I have some reservations about being so 'exclusionist' in this case. All those schools of thought are notable enough to have an article on their own. The purpose of this navigational box is to give an overview to readers; it is a summary of the information one can find here. If these schools are notable enough to have an article and be included in the article about the schools of economic thought, why aren't they notable enough to be included in the navbox? Plus, it could be argued that the notability criterion is shaky. Why do you deem that the Freiwirtschaft school or the Structuralist school are not notable enough for inclusion?

Also, you wrote that some of those items 'are economic systems, not schools of thought.' I think that this distinction isn't so sharp. For example microcredit theorists, libertarian socialists, Parecon theorists and free-market anarchists apart from proposing alternative economic systems also conduct theoretical research in ways that are distinct from the ways of the dominant schools of economic thought. So it is appropriate for one to talk about a 'microcredit school leader' or about the 'socialist school of economic thought' (these are expressions one can find in the relevant literature). --Omnipaedista (talk) 07:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Omnipaedista, I'm going on vacation two weeks later tonight, so I won't be able to reply after this for a bit. I'll explain my reasoning here, you can feel free to edit the template as you think is good, and we can pick up this discussion afterwards if you'd like. There's two categories of things you bring up, so I'll address them separately. Let me just say from the start that my goal was to reduce the severe bloat that was in the template, which I'm sure you understand. To be honest, I still think the template is a bit bloated, but I won't continue chopping away without explaining my reasoning.


 * Non-notability: This one is a little fuzzier than the other, I admit. My criteria here for exclusion were twofold, but both based around significance: Schools that could only identify one or a few scholars who had worked within them, and schools that could not identify a greater impact on economic thought. I thought Freiwirtschaft and Progressive utilization theory were obvious candidates for removal by these criteria--as far as I can tell from their pages, basically worked on by one or two people, with no outside impact. (The former is also extraordinarily badly written and poorly sourced, and smacks of WP:SOAP). Structuralist economics is the only one that I think I could be convinced the other way about, because it does at least reference a few people.


 * Economic systems: I think there's a quite clear distinction between schools of economic thought and thought about specific economic systems. The former is focused on explaining economic behavior (under some particular paradigm of thought), whereas the latter is simply about proposing ways to organize economic activity. I'm not saying that thinking about topics such as microcredit is not economic thought--what I am saying is that it's not correct to refer to the "microcredit school," by the common way one would refer to a school of thought, and, in reality, the way schools of thought are described in the Schools of economic thought page. I Googled "microcredit school leader", by the way, and found only a single result in a non-academic book, so I'm not sure I'd agree with your statement that these are common expressions. It's also unclear to me that they conduct theoretical research in ways distinct from what I have considered schools of thought--there are plenty of mainstream development economists who work on microcredit, for example. In addition, pages such as libertarian socialism or free-market anarchism are pages about political philosophy, not economic theory. My internal criterion here is "can I identify a unique lens that this 'school' analyzes economic behavior through?" For example, new institutional economics distinguishes itself by focusing on the ways institutions shape economic behavior.


 * I'd love to hear your commentary--I think my logic is sound here, but I'm a WP newbie. WeakTrain (talk) 15:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion procedure
With respect to your edits at Bernard Schmitt (economist), please note that the summary deletion procedure described at WP:Proposed deletion is designed only for uncontroversial deletions. Accordingly, a prod notice may be placed only once, and if it is removed for any reason, it may not be replaced. Also, when you find an entire book written about the legacy of an academic and published by a substantial academic publisher, it's a pretty strong sign that the person is notable, or in any event that the question is substantial enough that WP:PROD is inappropriate. (Searches turned up a number of other French-language sources as well.) --Arxiloxos (talk) 14:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Investment
Hey there! I just re-launched the WikiProject Investment.

The site has been fully revamped and updated and I would like to invite you the project.

Feel free to check out the project and ping me if you have any questions.

Cheers! WikiEditCrunch (talk) 00:27, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Econophysics
Could you have a look at Econophysics again, given recent round of what appears to be spam? Thanks, Attic Salt (talk) 19:16, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Honestly, that page, and Thermoeconomics, barely even have real justification to exist, given that they barely exist as real areas of study. It's probably preferable to nuke both of these articles, given how much refspam they've had shoved in them (not just by this one rogue IP). WeakTrain (talk) 19:22, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Edmund Phelps doesn't think this is spam: From:                                             Facebook  Sent:                  Tuesday, December 17, 2013 3:17 AM To:                     Campbell, Michael Subject:               Reminder: Edmund Phelps invited you to join Facebook... facebook Edmund Phelps wants to be your friend on Facebook. No matter how far away you are from friends and family, Facebook can help you stay connected. Other people have asked to be your friend on Facebook. Accept this invitation to see your previous friend requests Right-click here to download pictures. Edmund Phelps Director at Center for Capitalism and Society · Yale University · New York, New York 432 friends · 62 photos · 3 notes · 9 groups Accept Invitation              Go to Facebook  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:772A:E580:2CCF:2D8A:809A:7A57 (talk) 17:06, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Edmund Phelps being your Facebook friend doesn't confer you with some sort of special authority, Michael. Wikipedia runs on reliable sources, not assumed authority of any kind. If you can't understand that, I recommend you read up on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines--they're even listed at the top of this talk page for easy access. WeakTrain (talk) 19:05, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

quantal response equilibrium
You wrote on an edit " Removed needless mention of mean field theory, clarified that P_-i is beliefs about other players (if the model allows for false beliefs, not true that solution requires P_-i to match true strategies))". It doesn't appear that you have read the paper.  This was discussed with Alan Kirman (look him up, you could learn a lot from him) and he agreed that what was in the original article was correct: "Note that the 'belief' density in the expected payoff on the right side must match the choice density on the left side. Thus computing expectations of observable quantities such as payoff, demand, output, etc., requires finding fixed points as in mean field theory."

You clearly do not understand this. Please read the paper by Anderson, Goeree, Holt, which explicitly shows that this has to be done. They in fact do mean field theory to compute it.

Before modifying articles, please make sure you know what you're talking about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:772A:E580:2CCF:2D8A:809A:7A57 (talk) 16:49, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Also see the equation under paragraph 2 of section 3 in McKelvey and Palfrey's paper - it is exactly a mean field equation that requires consistency of the equilibrium probability distribution. Please do your homework before vandalizing articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:772A:E580:2CCF:2D8A:809A:7A57 (talk) 18:59, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Your purported personal conversations with people are not reliable sources. I recommend you read up on Wiki rules before editing willy-nilly. The part I edited was a mess. If you think my rewriting is incorrect, feel free to improve it. But improve it rather than adding in context-free paragraphs referring to a handful of papers that have only received self-citations. WeakTrain (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Anderson Georee Holt has been cited 43 times. You again make false claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:772A:E580:2CCF:2D8A:809A:7A57 (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Then cite that, rather than your own, uncited, unpublished, work. I don't consider 43 citations all that grand, either but the standards for theory are lower, I suppose. Also note a discussion about your edit warring at WP:OWN conduct | here. WeakTrain (talk) 19:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences
Unfortunately, I haven't heard back from you with regards to the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences and the links to the Mont Pelerin society. I'm aware of the big discussions about this page here on Wikipedia but I think that you should justify your deletion of my contribution instead of simply stating that it is not relevant. As I have pointed out in my private message to you, the Mont Pelerin Society was one of the most important think tanks world wide, had a specific ideological outlook, were deliberately seeking to influence the minds of the intellectual elite and they led to controversies. I'm more than happy to provide you with references for all these claims (as I did in my post on the Nobel prize page). I think these four points justify this information being added to the page because it is relevant background information on the ideological affiliation of the committee members. Could you provide a more solid rebuttal to this or should we maybe search a third opinion? In any chase, cheers for your contribution to Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Socialsciencesguru (talk • contribs) 09:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences (take 2)
You've been arguing this for years, but the Nobel Prize website has an unambiguous section saying, quote, The Prize in Economic Sciences is not a Nobel Prize. Following, WP:NOHOAXES, it is completely misleading to try and phrase the Wikipedia page to state that it is a Nobel Prize. It is not. The page should say so unambiguously. --128.237.167.34 (talk) 20:45, 31 May 2018 (UTC)