From TheBestLinks.com
Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need any questions answered about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or drop me a line. BTW, great work on your contribs to the Supply and demand article. Cheers! --maveric149
- Thanks.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. sorry to start off on the wrong foot, but I notice you're adding articles which are poorly named. While I'm glad to see you adding to the project, typically we try to name articles in a way that's concise and would fit in a standard sentence. That is, Surplus,Supply and demand wouldn't, because it has an unnecessary capital and is missing a space between "surplus," and "supply". I'm not sure what suggestions others might make, since I'm not at all knowledgeable about economic issues. But in the meantime could you see wikipedia:Naming conventions before you continue? Thanks, Koyaanis Qatsi
- Fixed.
See list of economics topics for a good list of good article titles in this field. Also see Talk:Economics where there are now links to a lot of names of articles, of which about half have been written, and all of which *need* to be. - 142
You left me a message:
- Minor request. Can you please fill in the summary field more often, especially when it is not a minor edit. Thanks (makes it easier for me to remember if I have looked a a particular edit before).
I'll try to remember. I tend to get sloppy late at night. On a completely unrelated topic, what do you think about the article two part tariff? I have never heard the term used to describe segmentation strategies or price discrimination strategies. This looks like a candidate for VFD. What do you think? mydogategodshat 06:00, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- My understanding of a two part tariff is when you have 2 components to the price of a product or service. For example an initial price plus a monthly subscriber fee. User:mydogategodshat 06:57, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- It is a form a second-degree price discrimination since essentially it is a quantity discount. I have cleaned up the article and added an example (I also removed the coupon and mail in rebates from the list of methods of imlementing since they sort of are, but they are also a third degree method of price discriminating as well (consumers with more time than money) so it is confusing) so take a look at it now that it is fixed. Jrincayc 15:28, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)
- Excellent work on two part tariff. That was quite a transformation, from one of the worst economics artcles to one of the better ones. I only have one specific comment. The Porter link needs some explanation. It is not clear what the two part tariff has to do with either Porter generic strategies or Porter 5 forces analysis. mydogategodshat 07:57, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- I am not sure what the porter competative model is so I can't answer that one. Membership discount retailers definatly can be considered a two part tariff. If you know and it doesn't make sense, then go ahead and remove the link. Jrincayc 14:29, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- I think I will remove the link because the connection is weak and certainly not clear without much more elaboration. mydogategodshat Moved rest of discussion to Talk:Giffen goods
The reason no edit summary is given is because I used the rollback button, which automatically inserts the words reverted to last edit by ... and marks the revert as minor. The reason the revert was made is because User:142.177.etc is a hard banned user. If hard banned users attempt to circumvent their ban and continue editing, the general guideline is to auto-revert them. It's just a way of enforcing the ban when IP blocks don't work. Having said that, if you feel the content is useful, there is nothing stopping you reinserting it. In fact, some articles by this user, which would otherwise have been deleted, have been "kidnapped" by Cyan so that other users feeling the content is useful can repost it under their own name. There's a list of them at User:Cyan/kidnapped if you're interested. There are more details of the ban of this user under his other login names at User:Mediator/ban and User:EntmootsOfTrolls/ban. Angela. 15:44, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Additional comments : in spite of what Angela says, User:Mediator is not hold by the banned user any more, so there is no sense in removing what has been written by that user. Besides, reverting good edits by banned users is controversial. Feel free to revert any edits you think are relevant. thanks PomPom
Fine, you do that. Here's a link: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#Requests_and_nominations_for_de-adminship. You might want to request desysopship of the following at the same time as they have all done exactly the same thing over the past month. If you have an issue with the policy, I suggest you write to the mailing list or something rather than making threats towards me. Angela.
- Tell me where this policy is so I can go and complain about it there. If this is a general policy, then I severely disagree with it, and not necessarily you for carrying out the policy. Jrincayc 21:51, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Try Wikipedia:Bans and blocks which states
- All edits by a hard banned user made since their ban, regardless of their merits, may be reverted by any user. We ask that users not reinstate any edits made by banned users, but some strongly oppose this policy
- How else do you propose to enforce a ban if a user is allowed to carry on editing? Angela. 21:55, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Funny, I can't seem to find the place where it states that all edits from an ISP that has had a banned user are to be considered edits from the banned user and should be reverted. I am right now working on hand examining the edit to Economics and it is mostly an improvement to the article. That same page you quote states:
- Most Wikipedians are good contributors, and we encourage people to show good Wikiquette when dealing with them. For example, we suggest that it is almost always better to fix bad edits, rather than revert them. In particular, reverting without some meaningful comment is particularly frustrating and off-putting to newcomers.
- Where is the evidence that the edits by a user from sympatico.ca (an isp with thousands of people) was the same person as the banned user? You have no proof and you reverted edits that are valid nonvandalism edits of an unknown user. I think that was wrong. Jrincayc 22:13, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I never said "all edits from an ISP that has had a banned user are to be considered edits from the banned user". If you refuse to be civil about this (making edit summaries such as "bullshit"), then I do not intend to discuss this further with you. Try reading Wikipedia:Wikiquette. Angela. 22:17, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- I apologize for getting out of hand. I should not have used BS as an edit summary. While you have not directly stated that "all edits from an ISP that has had a banned user are to be considered edits from the banned user", so far as I can tell, the only evidence that you have about 142.177.92.201 being EntmootsOfTrolls, is that they are from the same ISP. Therefore, from my point of view, it seems that you are operating under the assumetion "all edits from an ISP that has had a banned user are to be considered edits from the banned user." If I am mistaken, I would like to hear why I am mistaken on this point. Again, I apologize for getting out of hand and being uncivil. Jrincayc 22:30, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Apology accepted. Thanks. You can tell this user by the type of edits he makes. As Adam Bishop said today "IPs tend not to make the kind of sweeping edits, or fully wikified new articles that he makes". Also, I know the topics he works on and the biases he adds to articles, and also the kind of edit summary he makes. He has also created the same articles at Simple (http://simple.wikipedia.org) recently. Added to this, I knew he was active on Wikipedia as he had been editing Simple and Meta very shortly before, and his edits on Meta are a dead give away - he was creating pages like Banned user club! I am fully aware that not every 142 address is EofT but I strongly believe that this one was. Angela. 00:48, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- I think that you are probably right about the articles that you reverted. I do however strongly disagree with the revert all edits even if they are useful contributions policy. Jrincayc 16:07, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- this is fine Jrincayc. Some prefer reverting in any cases; others, less numerous, support keeping the good edits. Just do as you feel. And be aware reverting back will anger or sadden or just midly irritate those who prefer removing all banned users stuff. So try to do it *only* when it is really worth. Also, Angel knows 142 kind of edits quite well, so likely, when she feels it is 142 edit, it very probably is.
I agree with you about output elasticity
Hi JR, I recall that last month you mentioned that production theory basics would be improved by adding some price, cost, and output elasticity material to it. My comment at the time was that I wanted to keep the article purely non-monetary because the introduction of prices would be too much for some readers to handle in this introductory article and might reduce the clarity of the rest of the material in the article.
I think you are right that this material should be introduced somewhere, in fact, I have discovered that I have to cover it. I was fixing a stub social cost that was on cleanup which lead to my rewriting the article on welfare economics. But I realised that I can’t explain welfare economics adequately without dealing with the pricing and optimum usage of factor inputs, so I am going to start an article optimum factor allocation in which we can add issues like output elasticity, Marginal Revenue Product, and Marginal Resource Costs. In the production theory basics article I want to add a section on isoquants. Just thought I would keep you informed about what I am doing in case you have any more good suggestions.
By the way, what do you think of the new expanded economics page? mydogategodshat 22:19, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)
- Okay. The new economics page looks fairly good. I looked at the isoquants section, and added a comment about more that two dimensional isoquants. I have a thesis to write in the next few months (on teaching the pumping lemma), so I will be rather time constrained, but I will try to continue to at least look at the changes that are happening on wikipedia's economics section. Keep up the good work. Jrincayc 16:00, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the nomination on labour economics. I would like to reciprocate. What are some of the better articles that you have writen or contributed to? mydogategodshat 01:06, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- You're welcome. Supply and demand might be approriate to nominate. Jrincayc 17:47, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Hello from Berlin
Hi, nice to meet another economist. I saw you are interested in programming languages as well, so I wondered if you might help me with a project about learning I am starting. Please check my user page and let me know. Get-back-world-respect 21:56, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
- Well, I haven't programmed in basic for a while, and I don't have easy access to quick basic any more (since I use Linux and Mac OS X), but I might take a look some time. If you have specific questions, if you email me the question and the code you have a question about, I will probably respond fairly quickly to it. Jrincayc 03:16, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
Re: Specialization Versus Study
It was just the wrong word. It was just clearly the wrong word. "I specialize in Macroeconomics" isn't something I've ever heard. "I specialize in open currency flow models for developing economies" is. Stirling Newberry 13:25, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I agree with the revert. I just think that the summary "reverting minor useless edit" 1) does not explain why the edit was reverted 2) does not give any hint as to how if the editor had a good reason they should explain the reason. 3) could seem nasty to a newcommer. Jrincayc 02:34, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia Problems
What kind of problems do you expect to be discussed on the Wikipedia:Unsolved_Problems page? It's not at all clear to me. David Merrill 15:01, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Things that are currently at Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is not so great, but lack evidence. Jrincayc 15:07, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Something to read
Please consider reading this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Snowspinner/Avala_Evidence
and then voting here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#User:Snowspinner_.2854.2F6.2F2.29_Ends_17:06.2C_31_July_2004
-- orthogonal 18:17, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The Business and Economics Forum
What you might ask is the Business and Economics Forum? Well, Im not sure yet. At this point it is little more than scattered thoughts in my scattered mind. But I do have a vision of what it could be so I wrote this. I respect your opinion, so I am asking for your input before I mention it to anyone else, or list it on the community portal. I am particularly asking for any ideas you have that might make it work. mydogategodshat 18:51, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
License ?
Hi, what's the license of Image:Monopoly pricing.png ? We use it on french wp and would like to know the original license. Thanks in advance. Tipiac 16:42, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Public domain. I just added the license tag to it. Jrincayc 01:48, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Related links
Top visited
0 of
0 links
[no links posted yet]
>> place link >>
Discussion
Last posted
0 of
0 messages
[no messages posted yet]
>> post message >>
Watch
You can
add this article to your own "watchlist" and receive e-mail notification about all changes in this page.
