User talk:Editeur24

This is just a sentence to get this page started.

Disambiguation link notification for April 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Supply and demand, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Elastic and Elasticity (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 20:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I fixed this. --editeur24 (talk) 16:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Convergence tests, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Harmonic series.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:14, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

I fixed this. --editeur24 (talk) 16:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Unsolicited critical commentary on your edits to talk-pages

Hi Editeur24,

You happened to make some edits to articles on my watchlist, which drew my attention, and so now I've looked over a bunch of your recent edits to math articles. I have noticed the following features in a number of your comments:

• You add them on very, very old threads, without any indication of whether the issues discussed in them is still relevant.
• You add seemingly rhetorical questions ("Should we do ...?") or vague requests ("Maybe someone can add something about ...").

In the first case, it seems to me that you don't bother checking whether the issue is relevant before commenting (but of course I can't really be sure of that), and it is just a waste of other editors' time to raise moot issues. (Mixing completely new issues into old threads, as here, is also not ideal, for other reasons.) In the second case, I question the value of contributions like this one: if you believe what you're proposing is an improvement, why don't you do it yourself? If you don't believe it would be an improvement, then what is the point of raising it? It is unclear to me what a third alternative might be.

I hope that you will consider these comments as you continue your contributions here. Thanks, JBL (talk) 19:59, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, JeBeeEll. Your reversions sting some, but I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and I'm a math user, not a PhD in math, so I will consider everything you do carefully. I think we have some philosophic disagreements as well as me almost certainly making outright errors.

You said

• You add them on very, very old threads, without any indication of whether the issues discussed in them is still relevant.

I do usually (always? I don't know) check to see if the old Talk thread is still relevant. We may disagree as to whether it's moot or not. Sometimes it may be naive-- you may have seen the old talk thread where somebody (and me then) was confused about how the harmonic series has terms that go to zero but is divergent-- and so nobody gives it a good answer.

On checking, I occasionally add something like "This has been fixed." to the old talk thread. I wish that were more standard, since it's possible for an old talk thread never to be addressed. I'm not thinking the original ancient talker will read it; just that the article might still benefit from it.

You said

• You add seemingly rhetorical questions ("Should we do ...?") or vague requests ("Maybe someone can add something about ...").

I do think such questions and requests are useful, though perhaps not as a new comment on an old talk thread--- maybe it should be a new thread. Isn't the talk section supposed to be about how to improve the article? If an editor isn't sure about improvement X, he could "edit boldly" and insert it, or he could raise it on the Talk page. Reasons not to insert it would be (a) he isn't sure enough it's a good idea to want to go to the effort without getting some input (e.g., suggesting an entire new section), (b) he isn't expert enough (me with whether the math community would think of absolute convergence as a test), and (c) he doesn't have time (anybody who is busy and thinks he will probably forget to come back).

Best regards, --editeur24 (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi editeur24, thanks very much for your response. I want to apologize for the delay in getting back to you -- end of semester busyness has left me without the free time / attention span to properly respond. I hope to say something meaningful later this week. All the best, JBL (talk) 00:09, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I quite understand, even as I relax in not having had to teach this semester. Thanks for the quick note. editeur24 (talk) 04:23, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again for your patience. Let me begin by apologizing for any sting delivered -- I believe I have a tendency to come off as brusque on WP, but it's not meant to be hostile (and generally your work here seems very good!). I also think possibly I have erred by trying to make a general principle out of some specific examples. So, maybe I will double down on my query about this particular example (that I also mentioned above). I agree with you that the talkpage is about how to improve the article. I just have trouble understanding how this edit relates to that goal: like, what is the thing that is wrong that you're trying to improve? As far as I read your comment, it is just "Here is a thing that could be done; should it be done?" Have I misread you completely? --JBL (talk) 16:53, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh, PS, this is not super important but I added/changed indentation in your comment above, following the guidance at WP:LISTGAP; I hope that's all right. --JBL (talk) 16:54, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

That's fine.

That's fine to change the indentation. I'll gradually get the hang of the style, just as with someone stumbling through learning a language who tries to get the big things first and pick up the rest along the way. I glanced at WP:LISTGAP, but it's like looking at a grammar book as opposed to how a child learns.

I saw what you wrote.I'll see if anybody else does chip in, and then respond eventually. This is the kind of point where even the unthought short opinions of lots of people would be useful-- what style should article X be? But if they are silent, we two can talk anyway.

I just had a thought-- your user page might be a good place to say "Don't mind if I'm brusque sometimes, please, I try to be polite." It's hard to know how much explaining to do on Wikipedia, because one doesn't know if anyone is going to care about a change, and often zero people will care or object, so an ex ante explanation is a waste of time. But sometimes somebody will have unreasonable pride of authorship or strong political opinions and care a lot, and it would be good to ahve the ex ante explanatio adn soothing words. We must feel our way. --editeur24 (talk) 19:01, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sample mean and covariance, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vector.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Questions about the Federal Reserve

Hello friend. I notice your profile says you're an economics professor. I recently tried to improve an article about the Federal Reserve's role in coronavirus stimulus. If you're interested and have some time, feel free to take a look. The article is U.S. federal government response to the COVID-19 pandemic#Federal Reserve. The section is incomplete, and in need of an expert to fill in some details of the Fed's coronavirus stimulus efforts after March 23, 2020. I also posted some news articles and questions on the talk page. My motivation is that I sometimes hear people say "the fed spent $5 trillion dollars bailing out big businesses". But there is not really enough information in that article to evaluate that claim. Again, only if you're interested and have some time. Thanks for your help. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello bro. I'll take a look. I ought to know more about the topic anyway. It's outside of my subspeciality, so I'm the perfect one to edit it, since I know enough to be sort of expert, but far enough that I have no dog in any fights. --editeur24 (talk) 20:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Hey buddy. I'm sure you got busy, so no rush. But just doing a quick follow up to see if you're still interested in helping with this. Another option might be to give a couple paragraph answer to my questions here, and then I can take a stab at finding sources and incorporating your answer into the article. My questions are 1) what kinds of stimulus (out of the ordinary actions) has the Fed engaged in since the Coronavirus pandemic started (including the March stock market correction), 2) is it true that the Fed spent $5 trillion dollars bailing out big businesses, 3) have the Fed's actions played a big role in keeping the economy afloat, and 4) how important are the Fed's actions compared to what Congress is doing / fiscal policy (CARES Act)? Thanks for your time. I hope you're having a great week. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry I'm so slow. Bit of a crisis at work--boss trying to fire me. I'll have to read up too. The biggest role of the Fed has been to buy US Treasury debt used to pay for the amazing, gigantic, cash transfers to all and sundry. The Fed prints money to do that, so in effect it and Treasury are together using future inflation to finance the transfers. Economists have been noting that people are saving most of the per-capita payouts, so it wouldn't have any Keynesian stimulus effect, even if the Keynesians are right. But all of that is just background, needs verification. s I understand it, a lot of the "bailout" for business is really used to give money to business to pay employees who aren't doing any work, so it's really bailout for workers. But airlines, at least, got real bailout money. editeur24 (talk) 02:29, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Friendly greetings, eminent economist!

Hello, it is I, Ellie of Twitter. I do not always manifest as a groyper. This is me IRL. I am an SR 11-7 banker for the most part.

I briefly scanned the rebuke you got regarding editing math content. You were adequately contrite. I did something similar to one of the chemistry pages, but the chemists were more tolerant. I did not fare so well when I accidentally deleted a HUGE chunk of the Colonel (General?) Mu'ammar Khaddaffi BLP. But after undoing my errors, all was forgiven.

I would be delighted to help you decorate your user page with talk boxes if you want. Don't feel obligated, as the classic streamlined look is good too. I am so glad to meet you! Thank you for gracing my Wikipedia and Twitter experiences.--FeralOink (talk) 04:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind encouragement. I've been distracted by university matters. I think I'll keep the classic look, but appreciate your offer. I'll have to get back to the math edits. There is a fundamental difference in outlook. I think Wikipedia pages should be written for all levels of readers, but beginners in the topic are the most important. Mathematicians, I think, often want to write for math PhD's, exclusively. Dealing with that takes some delicacy. Also, they don't realize that while they are very good at the content, writing articles also uses writing ability, which they don't necessarily have. Wikipedia is the ideal format for combining skills-- for good writers to write, and then good content knowers to correct the content errors, then the good writers to smooth the content-knowers obscurity, and keep iterating. But while the good writers recognize they don't know content well, the good content people very commonly don't recognize that they don't know writing well. Maybe I'll write this up as a Wikipedia essay. Or perhaps such an essay already exists. Anybody know?editeur24 (talk) 02:34, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I think it is good to keep articles at a high level of knowledge, especially in specialized niche topics such as often happens with areas of math. Sure, the intro section of an article should be written as simply as possible (but not so simple it becomes wrong!), but afterwards it is fine to go as deep as is necessary However, often even that intro can't be written simplistically, as (especially in math) you can't even get a vague grasp on the fundamentals of the topic without having at least first year college mathematics. But that's ok, it is why you have links to other more fundamental wiki articles at the start so you can do background reading if necessary. Mathmo ^Talk 08:25, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

There's an important distinction. A math intro should be written so a 7th grader can read it, ideally (I'm teaching 7th graders now; this doesn't mean their parents can read it, tho!). But a 7th grader can't write such an Intro. Indeed, I doubt most college math majors could. It often takes someone with deep knowledge of the topic to write a simple, verbal, Intro. Most such people are so non-verbal that they can't do it, though many even of those can help by finding flaws in a verbal intro. editeur24 (talk) 17:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Equilibrium dominance (April 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Novem Linguae was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Equilibrium dominance and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Equilibrium dominance, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

–Novem Linguae (talk) 12:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Editeur24! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:36, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Editeur24, is it ok if I take the start you've made to use for creating an article? Thank you. Mathmo ^Talk 08:36, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Mathmo, go ahead. Do send me a link when it's done. editeur24 (talk) 17:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

A belated welcome!

The welcome may be belated, but the cookies are still warm!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Editeur24! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introductory tutorial
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Writing an article
• Five pillars of Wikipedia
• Community portal
• Help pages
• The Teahouse (newcomer help)
• Main help desk

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and the date.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Helen(💬📖) 02:21, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Equilibrium dominance

Hello, Editeur24. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Equilibrium dominance, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 13:01, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

"Editeur24/jackson" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Editeur24/jackson. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 30#Editeur24/jackson until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Stefan2 (talk) 12:06, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Timothy L. Jackson moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Timothy L. Jackson, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) In addition, there appears to be a WP:UPE or WP:COI conflict. Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, and have addressed the UPE/COI issue, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Please do not move into mainspace yourself. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I will take a look. editeur24 (talk) 22:22, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

The article seems to be back in Wikipedia. I see there was a lot of discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music_theory&oldid=prev&diff=1063755338. Is there more I need to do? editeur24 (talk) 20:42, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Editeur24! Your additions to Gordon Klein have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:00, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Gordon Klein for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gordon Klein is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gordon Klein until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

PianoDan (talk) 19:41, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Proper use of \text{}

Note the proper use of \text{} in LaTeX and in Wikipedia's variation on LaTeX code:

Relative \; Risk = \frac{D_E/V_E}{D_N/V_N}= \frac{20/400}{6/600}= \frac{.05}{.01} = 5\,

versus

\text{Relative risk} = \frac{D_E/V_E}{D_N/V_N}= \frac{20/400}{6/600}= \frac{.05}{.01} = 5\,

$Relative\;Risk={\frac {D_{E}/V_{E}}{D_{N}/V_{N}}}={\frac {20/400}{6/600}}={\frac {.05}{.01}}=5\,$

versus

${\text{Relative risk}}={\frac {D_{E}/V_{E}}{D_{N}/V_{N}}}={\frac {20/400}{6/600}}={\frac {.05}{.01}}=5\,$

You don't need to manually add spacing, and things in \text{} are not italicized. 2601:447:C601:3690:0:0:0:2208 (talk) 04:54, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. 2600:1700:1658:9880:1939:6823:86EE:ECC6 (talk) 22:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. editeur24 (talk) 21:45, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2023 (UTC)