User talk:WissensDürster

Informal Organization
Hi there, German colleague. I'm here to inform you that I declined deleting Informal Organization. I do not know how things are done at de-wiki (I have long ago decided to work here despite being German^^) but here we have processes to deletion and one of them is redirects for discussion. If you want to have this redirect deleted, please use this page to request it. Regards  So Why  14:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm ok, i just thought the problem would be so very obivous. But i can post it there again. Thanks --WissensDürster (talk) 15:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Need explanation of risk aversion graph
Hi! On 31 May 2015 you put a set of three graphs into the lead of risk aversion, but I found the caption to be insufficiently informative. So I put into the caption a one-sentence explanation of each of the first two graphs. But I don't understand the intent of the third graph. Could you put a brief explanation of it into the caption? Thanks, Loraof (talk) 15:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Of course! I'm glad you asked me. I thought it was a good idea to use 3 different standard economics-diagrams to show that the "curves" could look very different, though all signaling risk aversion (or the other types of risk attitudes). It depends on the context you want to apply that concept. The "W1-W2"-space is for example used extensively in insurance economics: to calculate insurance demand. Compare e.g. Zweifel: Insurance economics p. 85 I am eager to provide more explanations on my contributions if necessary :) regards --WissensDürster (talk) 07:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for responding. But the graph is still unclear. The caption needs to say what W_1 means, what W_2 means, and what the curves represent (are they indifference curves? Indifference by whom--buyers or sellers of insurance--between combinations of what and what?) Loraof (talk) 13:15, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem was, I was unsure wether I should/can include that much information in my caption. W stands for wealth, in two states, imagine W_1 to be wealth in good case (e.g. no damage) and W_2 the bad case (some damage, hence loss from initial wealth). So they are indifference curves based on expected utility! So it origines from a VNM-risk-utility-function (compare e.g. http://www.econport.org/econport/request?page=man_ru_advanced_icurves ) each state W has some probability (I not directly mentioned). They are the indifference curves from the insurance buyer. Maybe you can help me with how to include as much information as necessary but as little as possible. --WissensDürster (talk) 15:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Would this be an accurate caption?
 * Right graph: With equal probabilities of two alternative states 1 and 2, indifference curves over pairs of state-contingent outcomes are convex.


 * Loraof (talk) 17:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, actually the is a probability $$\pi$$ for $$W_1$$ and "counter"-probability $$(1-\pi)$$ for $$W_2$$. This is very important. In this setting the 45° line is called 'certainty line', because wealth under each condition/probability is the same, and thus there is 'no uncertainty'. But state probabilities differ. So I think this have to be expressed somehow different. --WissensDürster (talk) 19:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * When you defined the subscripts as referring to alternative states, I fully understood the graph. I know that the probabilities can differ--I just referred to the special case of equal probabilities to keep things simple, but it's easy to change my phrase "equal probabilities" to "fixed probabilities".


 * Unless I am misunderstanding you, your statement that the straight line is a line of certainty is not correct. At almost all points on the line, W_1 does not equal W_2, and so we don't know the eventual value of W because we don't know which state will occur.


 * Instead, the straight line is an indifference curve for a risk neutral person. Since all points on it give the same expected value of wealth (by the definition of risk neutrality), its slope is –(1–&pi;) / &pi; and it is not in general a 45° line. Perhaps you were thinking of a different graph that has a perfect certainty line.


 * Now that I know the graph is intended to be about wealth in different states, I'll put in a clear caption for it. Loraof (talk) 14:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, this was a misunderstand, 45° line (technical term: certainty line) was not refering to the "negative slope" indifference curve in the graph! I actually meant this to be "the 45° line", I am not sure if this is the expression in English. "bisecting line". This was just a reference to explain the meaning of different probabilities (now I think I understand your approach, you wanted to use them each 1/2?). On the bisecting line so to say wealth in each state is equalized (by definition, hence kind of "certain outcome"). Regards, --WissensDürster (talk) 14:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanky btw for your overall contributions. I read several of your articles :) --WissensDürster (talk) 14:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

It is Thanksgiving in the US, so thank you!


I am just a regular editor and nothing official like an administrator or Wikimedia contractor...I am an editor probably a lot like yourself. One important thing for me is to express thanks to other editors in a personal message to their talk page. This is not a template. I am just leaving this note for you to express my appreciation for your recent participation in voting for Arbatration Committee Members. Your vote is a great thing and with as many people participating as possible there is an excellent chance that we will have good representation on this committee. The Very Best of Regards,
 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 16:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * :) --WissensDürster (talk) 11:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)