User talk:Cretog8/Archive2

Re: Portal updating

Hi Cretog. Sorry about the delay in my response. I'm in central Asia and my access to Wikipedia has rather limited. I'm at the airport now. I was thinking of just posting messages on the relevant wikiproject talk pages each month to remind people to suggest articles, but I think your idea of creating a type of guideline is far more useful. It's far better if we more people involved. Anyways, let's hammer this out soon. I'll be back to regular internet tomorrow, hopefully, if my plane isn't delayed again. Cheers --Patrick (talk) 12:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Patrick--No need to apologize. I hope your travels are fun (and/or profitable). CRETOG8(t/c) 15:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Example of a game with no value

Kept from archive for reference

Hi Cretog. My main interest is games on the unit square, and it seems that many very reasonable games have no game value. There does not seem to be an article on games with no value. Actually, I created game value the other day, but this is just a redirect to minimax. We could either create a page games with no value perhaps, or even games on the unit square, neither of which exist. What do you think? Best wishes, Robinh (talk) 12:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Just a clarification: Silverman's game has a value (of zero). Did the Silverman's game article lead you to believe that it didn't? If so, it's not very clear and I'll need to rewrite. Best, Robinh (talk) 08:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robinh (just Robin?). I think I was getting various ideas crossed in my head; Silverman's game does not imply it has no value. The stub there definitely wants some work, though. It doesn't describe any solutions to the game. Also, it might be that it's possible to model it as being on the unit square, but it looks like the current definition is on

\Re _{+}^{2}

. Cretog8 (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again (yes I am plain Robin but the username was taken)-: Silverman's game seems to refer to more than one game...there seems to be an integer version too... but you're right that the article needs more work. One day I'll actually get round to writing games on the unit square but in the meantime I reckon the minimax article could use a "main article: Von Neumann's minimax theorem" bit. Perhaps such a page would be the place to discuss "counterexamples" (ie games in which the minimax theorem does not apply). Or maybe example of a game with no value would be better. We could use Parthasarathy's example. What do you think? Very best wishes, Robinh (talk) 21:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cretog. Would you cast your informed eye over Example of a game without a value? I'd appreciate some comments. Best wishes, Robinh (talk) 13:26, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Robin--I'm slow to get enough brain power to focus, but will shortly. CRETOG8(t/c) 17:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you by any chance have a PDF of Sion & Wolfe that you could mail to me? CRETOG8(t/c) 05:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The tag up top is right, it does need more context. I'm afraid as the article stands someone might decide to remove it as not being notable. Just an "example" might not be enough for an article. Game theory's likely a backwater, though, so it might not happen. Anyway, context in the form of either how it fits in the broader theory or how it's applicable as a model of something would be good. In fact, if either of those come up, then maybe it should become a section of another article. Anyway, only skimmed cuz my brain is thick, but it looks pretty good. I'll look more. CRETOG8(t/c) 06:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might be that the thing to do is to make a section in Zero-sum which includes continuous-strategy (and/or discontinuous payoff) games. The stuff currently in the zero-sum article is currently not quite right, and could use clarification anyway. CRETOG8(t/c) 20:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Cretog. I do have a copy of Sion (PDF) right here. How best to send it to you? Robinh (talk) 20:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Robin--To the left there's an "E-Mail this user" option. Or you can do it here. That doesn't look like it will allow attachments, but if you email me, we can exchange email addresses so you can send it. CRETOG8(t/c) 22:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response

I've placed an answer on my talk page. Of course please let me know if I need to flesh it out or somesuch. —SlamDiego_←T 20:56, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

copied from User_talk:SlamDiego/Archive_15#Austrian_economics_discussion SlamDiego's archives:

I'm not sure whither I might point, so I'll just explain. A concept is truly the general idea, and nothing that is not intrinsic to that general idea; a conception has additional assumed or presumed features. Think of an American as no more than a person from America, and you're dealing with a concept; make him fat and give him a loud mouth, and you're dealing with a conception. If this conception is accepted for a concept, then it becomes impossible to talk about thin or quiet Americans; at best, one could talk about thin or quite people who are almost Americans. It's not that we want to avoid conceptions; it's that we don't want them to be presented as the general idea. The assumption or presumption of non-essential features amounts to the deliberate or accidental assumption or presumption of a theory. —SlamDiego←T 20:54, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

moving article and talk page confusion

Help Me Question

I moved the article Economic imperialism to Economic imperialism (economics), and then changed the page which was now just a redirect to point to Neocolonialism instead of Economic imperialism (economics).

Seemed like a good idea at the time. Now, awkwardly, the "discussion" tab on (the redirect page) Economic imperialism goes to Talk:Economic imperialism (economics). That seems a minor problem for now, but I think at some point someone should make a real article at Economic imperialism, and then it will be a real problem.

Help? CRETOG8(t/c) 12:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the talkpage redirect. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see what you did now--I keep forgetting that a talk page is just another page, and so thought it would be mechanically different. Next time I'll know better. Thanks! CRETOG8(t/c) 14:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reditrects

Commendable clean-up job on the above for links to Ei(e). I din one for Economics imperialism. Someone else did one for Cultural economics. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 22:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I hope someone comes and actually creates a proper "economic imperialism" article. Anyway, little things like that bug me, so I'm glad it's better organized. CRETOG8(t/c) 23:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Austrian economics on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Economics

Hi there,

I thought you would like to know that we are trying to hammer out a consensus about Austrian economics on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Economics. Please drop by and leave your comments.

thanks, lk (talk) 16:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Five Percenters

I replied on my talk page. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

D&D articles for Wikipedia 0.7

Hi there! :)

As someone who's worked on D&D and/or RPG articles before, I'm inviting you to participate in our goal to both improve articles that have been selected to be placed in the next Wikipedia DVD release, as well as nominate more to be selected for this project. Please see the WikiProject D&D talk page for more details. :) BOZ (talk) 18:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Persistent, disruptive editing by User:Vision_Thing

Hi Cretog, when you're back from your break, please leave a message here. Wik idea 11:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wikidea--I appreciate the heads-up, and also your predicament. I'm going to beg out of this particular conflict for the moment though. I may come to regret it as VT and I have butted heads in the past and likely will again. But I'm not up to it now. I will try to watch and participate on specific edits. CRETOG8(t/c) 22:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobel Prize

It has been discussed a number of times and consensus reached to "Nobel Prize in Economics". [1] --Hapsala (talk) 19:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, it's been discussed a number of times. You refer to a discussion which is two years old. The discussion which was one year old determined to rename it to "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences". It's had that name for about a year. A new discussion is appropriate if you want to move the article. I'll start the conversation on the talk page, although geez it's annoying to keep repeating this. CRETOG8(t/c) 19:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that one (or possibly two) individuals could establish consusus regarding the renaming of Wikipedia articles.... --Hapsala (talk) 00:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this discussion is much more complete. I was working primarily from a status-quo bias. The previous title had been there for a good long time and so (to my eye) was effectively consensus without further discussion. CRETOG8(t/c) 00:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Hapsala (talk) 18:58, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arthashastra comments

understood. i apologize.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.222.213.137 (talk) 22:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'deletion--what's the problem? explain at talk'

Perhaps the briefest of glances at the article's history would provide you with the answer

(remove inappropriate, unreferenced, and thoroughly useless trivia. If you wish to include it, 'Killkoa', discuss it on the Talk page.) 13:58, 5 September 2008 CalendarWatcher (Talk | contribs) (19,312 bytes)
(remove inappropriate, unreferenced, and thoroughly useless trivia. If you wish to include it, 'Killkoa', discuss it on the Talk page.) 03:58, 4 September 2008 CalendarWatcher (Talk | contribs) (19,312 bytes)
(Undid revision 228354673 by 96.248.130.135 (talk) - enough with the trivial reference to an unknown hack writer) 13:38, 28 July 2008 CalendarWatcher (Talk | contribs) (19,240 bytes)
(Remove trivia: 1) unrelated to topic; 2) wildly out of tone with the rest; 3) neither book nor author even have articles, meaning that this is even less important, not to mention unverifiable.) 13:47, 22 June 2008 CalendarWatcher (Talk | contribs) (19,634 bytes)

And most especially, this:

(Undid revision 237169669 by CalendarWatcher (talk)i like his version better. i never actually read the book 15:21, 9 September 2008 98.222.196.27 (Talk) (19,642 bytes)

In addition, a quick glance at the contributions of what is clearly a single troll--one whose existence you're already aware of, given that you've already warned him:

Killkola (talk · contribs)
98.222.218.113 (talk · contribs)
98.222.196.27 (talk · contribs) - and this block log
96.248.130.135 (talk · contribs)

and quite probably

I ate the cookie (talk · contribs)

Included are the following highlights:

(←Replaced content with 'retired from wikipedia... Calendar Watcher is gay for even coing here to look') 18:48, 18 October 2008 (hist) (diff) User:Killkola
[2] 9:30, 22 June 2008 (hist) (diff) m User:CalendarWatcher/Talk Archive 1
(CALENDARWATCHER IS A FUCKING WIKI-TARD!) 22:07, 19 October 2008 98.222.213.137 (Talk) (19,637 bytes)
(no no no... calendar watcher u cant touch my clitoris... im 13 thats wrong) 03:58, 17 October 2008 98.222.185.84 (Talk) (19,637 bytes)
(adding the sameinformation again because a wiki-durkha durkha will not stop harassing me.) 22:56, 12 October 2008 98.222.213.137 (Talk) (19,637 bytes)
(Undid revision 236449242 by CalendarWatcher (talk) reverting vandalism by a wiki douche bag) 14:04, 5 September 2008 98.222.196.27 (Talk) (19,653 bytes)

Is any further information necessary? --CalendarWatcher (talk) 06:10, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling

No problem. :-) — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Auction spam

Thanks for this. I thought my revert got it. I should have checked the history. --GraemeL ^(talk) 18:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That one had slipped by us all for a while. O well. (Stupid place to put it, too...) CRETOG8(t/c) 19:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Balance and mainstream view of economics

As recent discussions have shown, there are articles all over the economics field that have problems like this. Let's work on Energy economics and Economic freedom to start with. On the latter, I've posted a POV flag. My edit noting the controversial nature of the term and including a little bit from FDR has been twice reverted without discussion. Take a look and see what you think.JQ (talk) 21:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion doesn't seem to be getting us far at Economic freedom. Rather then keep reverting VisionThing's reverts, I've asked a few others to take a look. BTW, I posted some advice to him about 3RR on his talk page and he reverted that. He seems to think that 2 reverts per 24 hours is fine. But rather than play that game ourselves, i think it's better to seek a broader consensus. JQ (talk) 12:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going through the motions of discussion largely for the benefit of others who come along later. My experience with an earlier attempt at the article doesn't leave me much hope that VT and I will come to an understanding. Getting more input for consensus is good, but I wouldn't be too timid about reverting--if one editor can edit-war two editors into submission because we're too polite, there's a problem. CRETOG8(t/c) 12:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

“Odd insertion”

I'm not sure why someone feels the need to insert that, but he or she has done it more than once. —SlamDiego_←T 03:54, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those throw me for a loop--not clearly vandalism, not POV, not even necessarily badly written, just non sequitur. CRETOG8(t/c) 04:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comparative advantage

i await your reply here!

[IM SORRY, BUT I JUST FEEL THAT THIS IS REALLY POORLY WRITTEN LEAVING READERS WITH MORE QUESTIONS THAN ANSWERS. THE EXAMPLE OF SOUTHLAND AND NORTHLAND DOESN'T EXPLAIN WHY SOUTHLAND DOESN'T DO AS NORTHLAND AND SPECIALIZE. IF IT DID THEN IT WOULD HAVE OUTPUTS OF 400 FOOD AND 0 CLOTHES. FURTHER, THE FLAWS IN THEORY DO NOT REFLECT THE EXAMPLES. PLEASE ELLABORATE!] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.11.204.51 (talk) 15:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! You've learned how to turn off caps lock and leave a message on a talk page where it belongs. That means you can now post any thoughts you have at Talk:Comparative advantage. Please do so without caps-lock on. CRETOG8(t/c) 15:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

im asking you, since you think you know about it by editing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.11.204.57 (talk) 02:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed

I'm happy to have the whole irrelevant discussion removed. Including the heading. I agree it's irrelevant. - Ron Paul...Ron Paul... (talk) 06:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

November 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page The Road to Serfdom has been reverted. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): rule: '\bblog\.com\b' (link(s): http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/archives/2006/11/milton_friedman.html) . If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).

If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! XLinkBot (talk) 14:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template talk:Economics sidebar

Hello, Cretog8. Concerning "Proposed edit stemming from "Methodologies" section" at Template talk:Economics sidebar, since your comment there on 18:33, 24 October 2008, I have made 2 additional comments, including an amended proposal on 15:55, 7 November. One other advantage of the amended proposal that I failed to mention there is that: Behavioral · Cultural · Evolutionary in (A) is also continuous with Methodology · Heterodox methods (besides Micro) at the end of the first section. Would you have any additional comments you'd care to add, either here or there? Thanks. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 20:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Thomas--I appreciate the thought you're putting into this. I think I still prefer the current sidebar--I've tried to justify myself at the talk page. CRETOG8(t/c) 16:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I'm commenting here rather than at Talk sidebar, b/c further comment there at this time would I think go nowhere. I would favor expanding the content of Economic methodology, which might meet your pragmatic concern. I agree that "Math/Quant methods" is better than "Quant methods", but the former would entail widening the sidebar. At least the proposed "Quantitative methods" link in (A) (JEL classification codes#Mathematical and quantitative methods JEL: C Subcategories) would be more precise. That is where "Design of Experiments" is with its link to Experimental economics. I think it's a favor to readers with less interest in Quant/Math to bundle those subjects together in a section, the better to not be turned off by it. Evolutionary economics as an applied subject (indicated here for example) is a field, besides being a methodology. As such it fits in well with surrounding fields of (A), besides being continuous with Methodology · Heterodox methods in the earlier section of (A). I hope that any difference in views would be resolved in favor of which version would be predicted to be of interest and use to most potential readers. Comments welcome (but I wouldn't be offended otherwise). --Thomasmeeks (talk) 16:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, again. I have responded to the pragmatic, short-term concern you expressed about Economic methodology. The resulting revision there is discussed at Talk:Economic methodology/Archive 1#Continuity in and additions for a recent Edit. I believe that anyone with an interest in that subject (or aspect thereof) would find the article & added links therein significantly more helpful, although the article remains short and to the point. Would you be open to further discussion of the above here? --Thomasmeeks (talk) 09:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Graham and Charles Brandes

It appears that you removed Charles Brandes as one of Ben Graham's disciples on your Aug. 22 edit of Benjamin Graham. May I inquire what motivation or rationale you had to do that?

I assume you're referring to this edit. That was done by an IP editor, I don't know who or why. CRETOG8(t/c) 01:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

link from Ochlocracy to www.anacyclosis.org

The word "ochlocracy" was coined by Polybius in his discussion of anacyclosis. It means "rule by the mob" and refers to the degenerate form of democracy. See second link on page "rotation of polities" which is simply the portion of The Histories which discusses anacyclosis. The word "anacyclosis" is referenced in The Histories as "politikos anakyklosis" which has been translated as "cycle of political revolution".

I would not suggest linking www.anacyclosis.org to the other forms referenced by Polybius (monarchy, kingship, tyranny, aristocracy, oligarchy, or democracy) because those words have different origins. However, the concept of "ochlocracy" owes its origin to anacyclosis and any discussion of ochlocracy not anchored to the broader concept of anacyclosis is out of its original context. I intend on reinserting the link to www.anacyclosis.org--please let me know if after reading this explanation you wold still object.

Thanks

PDX79 (talk) 23:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello--It's not relating ochlocracy to anacyclosis that is objectionable (at least to me who is quite ignorant of such things). It's that the www.anacyclosis.org site doesn't seem to satisfy the requirements for external links. It may be informative, but the informativeness is somewhat buried in the presentation, and there's no reason to believe it's particularly authoritative. My suggestion would be to remove the links to www.anacyclosis.org, improve the anacyclosis article itself, and rely on discussion and links in those two articles rather than external links. CRETOG8(t/c) 17:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I reviewed the link criteria and do not feel strongly about adding the link to www.anacyclosis.org to the ochlocracy page, so I will just leave your change. I agree in principle that internal links should be relied upon. I also agree that the existing anacyclosis article (and the kyklos article) is pretty scant and that it is in need of revising, which I will be happy to do.

With respect to linking from the anacyclosis page, however--and the concern you mentioned regarding authoriativeness--I could find no true authority on anacyclosis; there are a few articles that approach the doctrine from a historiographical perspective, but there is no source that contains a general application of the doctrine on a broad scale. However, the website does state that its content is adapted from sources. I looked around at other pages to see what kind of links they had to see how off-base the link to www.anacyclosis.org was, and by reference to the other pages I sampled, the link seems reasonable (check out "Kwanzaa" or "Democracy" or "Scientology" or "Homosexuality" or "Conservatism" for an example.) I believe that the links I have added are reasonable, but I am open to discussion. Let me know if you feel strongly about this or if you would suggest I change something I have done on wikipedia--I am always open to discuss.

PDX79 (talk) 00:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FOLLOW UP:

I have thought about it some more and deleted all links to www.anacyclosis.org except I think it is reasonable and useful to keep links from two articles: "anacyclosis" and "kyklos". I followed the pattern on the scientology page and put the link under "Other Resources" on the anacyclosis article. Let me know if you don't find this reasonable and agreeable. Thanks

PDX79 (talk) 02:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

response to a note regarding deletion of references

I appreciate your concern about the books I've been adding. However, they're entirely on topic, and I've gone so far as to provide section numbers for the relevant sections. The books are published by reputable authors from major universities, and through reputable academic publishers. The books are new, but I'd think that's a good thing. I'm not sure what's the point of references in a wiki when one person can arbitrarily choose to undo the hard work of adding them! For example, you mentioned extensive form games. This is a major topic covered by both books; in particular, "multiagent systems" covers computational material on the subject that does not appear in the primarily economic references currently on the page. From your note you sound like you're knowledgeable on the topic. I suggest you follow any one of the links to these one of these books ("multiagent systems" is free online from anywhere, so it's easy for you to check) and see for yourself whether the links are spurious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.189.244.101 (talk) 02:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello--Indeed, I see noting on the face of it wrong with using these as references. The books appear to be of fine pedigree :). Again, it's a matter of promotion and possible conflict of interest. I still don't know if you have an interest in these books. While the newness of the books is good in that material in say Luce & Raiffa is dated, it also means that they haven't been evaluated by many people to judge whether and on what material they provide a better resource than the many other references available.

Honestly, I look forward to checking out the material that's freely available myself, but the massive linking simply looks like advertising. That's why I suggest you bring it up at the game theory project to see what response you get from others. CRETOG8(t/c) 02:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a grad student at the same institution as one of the authors; took a class with him. I thought it would be fun to add pointers to the books while invigilating a long exam. I particularly thought the links could be useful to the community because both books are available free online, very unusual for textbooks. I hardly did "massive linking": I looked up the section for each item, and probably did about a dozen pages in total. As you can see, I'm not a regular wikipedia contributor; thus, I don't really feel like having a huge discussion with the game theory project. If relevant references in published books aren't appropriate additions to wiki articles, fair enough; I think I've spent enough time on it. If you look at the links and decide to keep some or all of them, also fine...

Theory of the firm

About your message on Theory of the firm, I think perhaps I shouldn't have made the rating. This is not my field, and I've never seriously studied Industrial Organization. I only have a cursory understanding of what the theory of the firm is. I made the rating as it seemed obvious that as a topic within a sub-field, it should not be rated as 'high' importance. I'll help you fend of POV pushers if you like, but I can't really contribute input beyond that. Sorry. LK (talk) 05:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I hope POV-pushers won't be a problem on that article. It's mostly a matter of me getting around to fixing it, and that could take a while. CRETOG8(t/c) 11:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The God Ford

Re: The God Ford^[1] - Yes, it is referenced. Read the rule on vandalism. "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism. For example, adding a controversial personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism; reinserting it despite multiple warnings is. Not all vandalism is obvious, nor are all massive or controversial changes vandalism. Careful attention may need to be given to whether changes made are beneficial, detrimental but well-intended, or outright vandalism."Esasus (talk) 15:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re Cat:Jewish American social scientists

Hi, happy to answer your question. It's pretty simple: Social scientists are a fundamental sub-division of all scientists; so Category:Jewish American social scientists is the major, obvious sub-category of Category:Jewish American scientists (which survived a challenge at CFD last year). Hope that helps. Btw, I'm curious how you happened to notice the new category so quickly. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 00:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the category because I watch a lot of economics articles, and saw you updating several (like Herbert Simon). I guess if Category:Jewish American scientists survives an AFD, then... well, I don't know what because it appears to me to be in blatant violation of those guidelines, but consistency is a lot to ask for in WP, and it's not a fight I'm looking for. Thanks for the explanation! CRETOG8(t/c) 04:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nash Equilibrium

I'm shocked, rather than discouraged by what you have done. Nash equilibriums have been extremely helpful to me over my entire career. What was written on the previous draft was (and remains) unhelpful and opaque. My paragraph improves it, sets it in context, and gives a simple, useable example with links to the real world. If you dislike the style, by all means amend it, but to delete the entire paragraph is extraordinary. A person approaching the subject for the first time needs to be able to see what the point of it is, what is its context, and how it addresses the problems caused by other arguments. The status of the article has been downgraded for good reason - a secondary schoolchild approaching this subject would be bewildered by the article as it stood. The purpose of an encylopedia is to render knowledge accessible, and by that criteria my paragraph opened the whole of the rest up.--Muinchille1 (talk) 15:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, taking it out to work on it elsewhere is still shocking. The page lacks an explanation of why anyone should care less about Nash Equilibriums. Mine is the only one available. You can work on it on the main article. The reason what you are doing is shocking is because writing an accessible piece of that length takes about two hours, which is why most people don't bother, and instead write something technically accurate, but impossibly opaque. Just removing it because you don't like the style and working on it somewhere else is unacceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muinchille1 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Nice to see someone has noticed my absence. While my recent addition is a nice excuse, not to mention a new job, etc., etc. - truth be told, my main problem is that I'd started taking Wikipedia too seriously. No doubt I'll be back, but I'm not rushing into anything. Good to see you're still fighting the good fight. Your recently amended editing strategy is also something I've considered, although truth be told at the moment I'm thoroughly enjoying the break. :-) Debate 木 10:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have a cookie for your unwavering intelligence, neutrality and common sense. Debate 木 11:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Debate 木 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

civility

Please be wp:civil in your edits, including the edit summaries--unlike your recent edits to dollar auction. CRETOG8(t/c) 18:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, mister :) Turkeyphan^t 19:41, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Business and Economics Barnstar

		The Business and Economics Barnstar
		For tirelessly improving the quality of Economics articles on Wikipedia. LK (talk) 08:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Economics articles are looking a lot better today than they did a year ago, and your efforts have made a major contribution to that. LK (talk) 08:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree more strongly. Well done. Debate 木 11:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic difficulty

Hi there, Cretog8. I saw your post on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 54#Dynamic game balancing and thought you could be interested on the merge that has been performed. Sorry for not warning you before, I didn't think of following the "what links here" links until after the merge was performed. Anyway, see Talk:Dynamic game difficulty balancing#Merge for more details, and to leave your opinion. Cheers, Waldir ^talk 19:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations Doctor!

It must be a huge relief, although now you'll have to get a real job. ;-) AngoraFish 木 10:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC) (AKA Debate)[reply]

Thanks! Yes, it's a phenomenal relief, and yes, the crisis now shifts from thesis to job-hunt. CRETOG8(t/c) 16:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Good for you. Actually, job-hunting is easy. Wikiing is hard. If you could do that and complete your doctorate too, you're ready for anything. Hope you keep your good humor. Under normal circumstances, there's usually enough to keep us smiling between the groans. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 16:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

^ Chris Roberts, Heavy Words Lightly Thrown: The Reason Behind Rhyme, 2006 Thorndike Press,at page 246 (ISBN 0-7862-8517-6)

[1] Chris Roberts, Heavy Words Lightly Thrown: The Reason Behind Rhyme, 2006 Thorndike Press,at page 246 (ISBN 0-7862-8517-6)

[1]