User talk:Tinkeringwiki

Market (economics)

Please do not edit-war your content in to Market (economics). If you continue to do so, you may be blocked. It is completely unsuitable for Wikipedia; see the sections about tone in Wikipedia:Writing better articles for more information. Graham87 03:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it really isn't ... what you added was a high school/college paper, not text for an encyclopedia article. Since you added it in such a hafhazard way I have no desire to even *try* to incorporate it properly, even if I could. If you live up to your username more and actually tinker with Wikipedia articles for a few months, rather than slapping a huge amount of text on a Wikipedia article as your first edit, you will understand the difference. Per your writing style it seems you are either very young or a non-jnative English speaker. If the former is the case, see Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors]]; in the latter case, se you should edit the Wikipedia in your native language. Also see the links I placed below. Graham87 12:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of being an ignorant person, try to learn about the subject matter first, that requires effort. Try to realise the papers which I cited are classic papers in economics each of those have more than 1000s of citations, Coase's nature of the firm, the Willamsons Transaction cost economies and Grossman Hart papers are very well known in firm theory. They have spawned immensely active areas of research. The rest of citations were from well regarded organisations like the UNCTAD.

Not only English is my native language but I have a graduate degree in math, I do not think I qualify for "wikipedia's guidance for young editor". I have personally edited/ written sections in multiple math (computational logic, theoretical cs) related Wikipedia articles. I chose to edit this from a different profile because I like to keep my various interests separate. I have never come across any of this "tone" issue ever while editing math articles.

You said: "what you added was a high school/college paper, not text for an encyclopedia article". Except texts for wikipedia articles can and do include academic papers. Instead of calling my edit "haphazard", maybe you should look at article now.

Their is no definition of the market, nor is their a demarcation between the market and firm and other organisations. Those are things which people should learn about when learning about markets do not you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tinkeringwiki (talk • contribs) 13:23, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your messages. The text you added had many rhetorical questions, overused quotes, and included suppositions/guesses, which are the hallmarks of a paper, not an encyclopedic article. We don't cite papers from 1937, no matter how seminal they may be, unless directly discussing the history of a process; for example the penicillin article only cites Alexander Fleming's seminal paper on its discovery once, to clarify his conclusions. The definition of the market is in the lead section, as it should be. You may well have a point about the lack of mention of firms.

You can get away with a more conversational style (among other things) in mathematics articles, because there is no other elegant way to present proofs, etc. I'd be curious to know the name of your other account/s; while fragmenting your edit history like this is not technically prohibited in the sockpuppetry policy, it's considered rather unconventional. Graham87 14:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First "we do not cite a paper from 1937", Really? We do not? Could you cite something to back that up.

i) Anyway this is the article of Hilbert Style Deduction system , check whether it refers Hilbert's article from 1927 or not. This is the wikipedia article of sequent calculus, check whether it refers Getzen's article from 1935. If you happen to find some thing which prohibits linking articles from some date then I suggest you clean up multiple other logic/math pages.

ii) Wikipedia should not have higher standards of academic rigor than academia itself. The Coase paper was cited some 3600 times between 2018-2019 and 2700 times between 2019 and 2020.

Not only citing the paper to introduce the matter of discussion, which is done in all economic classes, but it is difficult without using that paper to explain how research has progressed.

Second, "The definition of the market is in the lead section, as it should be."

No it is not. Thats why I added a section on "What are markets?" The word "price" does not even appear even once in the lead section. Hall mark idea of the market mechanism is the price system. Without explaining that price is what regulates market, their is no definition of the market. Like I said, if you have tonal issues then fix it yourself do not get rid of the content. Tinkeringwiki (talk) 15:03, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for signing your message. There is a section in the reliable sources guideline called "Age matters", which touches on the topic of age of references. As it points out, medical articles, with which I am most familiar, are the strictest about very strongly discouraging the use of older references. I'm swayed by your argument that the seminal papers you cite are very frequently used in economics in the last two years, so I have restored your text, while improving its tone, doing a general copyedit, and standardising the citations. I kept the quotes in the text ... I realise now that they're integral to what you wrote. I hope you're OK with what I've done and I'm sorry about the bother I've caused. I was going to restore your text a couple of hours ago but I had trouble rephrasing some of the quotes ... I understand now that that wouldn't have been necessary and probably would have been harmful. While I was trying to find guidelines specific to economics, I discovered Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics/Reliable sources and weight, which you might find interesting. I know almost nothing about the subject of the article ... it's only on my watchlist due to vandalism that lasted a long time. Graham87 17:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah than you for editing my inclusion. Your edits are totally fine. Sorry I got offended for no reason. Tinkeringwiki (talk) 19:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to check out the edits that have been made to your addition, particularly to the citations, and take heed of what they changed (in particular we use specific jstor and doi fields). Most of the edits were mine but one was by Keith D because you accidentally put an author's first name into the date field. Graham87 05:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hi Tinkeringwiki! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Graham87 12:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Ship of Theseus, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:40, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]