User talk:Thomasmeeks

The estimated parameters measure the size of relationship between the response variable and each of the respective predictors. The 'prediction' of a regression equation is in the sense of causal-like association, rather than a forecast, in that values of the response variable used in the parameter estimates are already known.

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 14:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Codex Sinaiticus, I can use all the help I'm offered. I was relieved to see that the history of the article shows me with the same number of reverts as you today (that is, 3). But your point, which I was aware of, is well taken. I would never intentionally violate the 3RR rule. Thank you for your taking the trouble to write. --Thomasmeeks 16:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Permission granted in favour of the support for the given lead. Woollymammoth 20:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Thomasmeeks, I do not think that the place of the external link you added to Regression was well chosen. Regression is not only about Americal econometric data, to say it sharply, and external links should not be placed in the body of the text. See WP:LINKS. I suggest you to add it to the article about data sets and/or Economerty, in the section External links. Greetings,--Ioannes Pragensis 19:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ioannes Pragensis:

Thank you for your comments. For ease of reference, let me meke the following points.

1. The relevant guideline in WP:LINKS is the first substantive sentence of the link:

Adding external links to the text of the article can be a service to our readers, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article.

Is it of service to our hypothetical reader? I believe so. To quote from, well, my Edit summary, it "answers the question that one hopes the innocent lay reader might ask as to 'data' at the end of the 2nd paragraph: 'Such as from where?'."

2. The relevant lead guidelines are for establishing context and providing an accessible overview, which I believe the footnote does, with or without the link.

3. The link in question was the top-ranked "data sources" hit. It includes American economic data to be sure, but msny other kinds of data (including data for agriculture, crime, demography, education, health, voting, and transportation, other data sites, links to other lists of data, etc.) from around the world in every instance (even including the U.S. Statistical Abstract, which has comparative international statistics at the end), statistical abstracts ro other conntries, etc. The link is also very inviting to look at.

4. North America is of course the largest audience for English Wiki. I can't see what the problem is for American data, especially when there are so many sources from elsewhere. By the way, the link in questiom is at a Canadian university.

Comments are welcome. --Thomasmeeks 15:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC) (Next to last line corrected.) --Thomasmeeks 13:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Thomasmeeks,

1. Read please WP:LINKS to the end - under "External links section" it states that the best place for external links is the External links section at the end. Otherwise you "should give your reader a good summary of the site's contents, and the reasons why this specific website is relevant to the article in question" - which is impossible here, because the website is relevant only very loosely if at all.

2. Either the footnote is important, and then it can be in the main text after a re-formulation, or it is unimportant and should be dropped from the lead. I've never seen footnotes like this in good WP leads. We should keep the style of the whole work.

3. and 4. May be it is true that the USA is the most important audience, but the content should be unbiased (read WP:BIAS). The link is from a university, but it is not officially supported by the university. The server does not matter, important is the authority. Moreover the list has not only cultural bias but also a "discipline bias": regression is widely used also outside of economy (e.g. physics, biology, medicine etc.).

Have a nice day,--Ioannes Pragensis 10:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thx for your response below, Ioannes Pragensis. I'm responding here on the hope that differences could be narrowed. As to your (1) above, WP:EL#External links section says not that ELs are "best" in their own section but that they are "most common" there. (It implies that placement elsewhere can be justified.) The discussion (and heading) there seems to refer to ELs for an EL section. The first paragraph of WP:EL#What to link agrees with the reason I gave in the Edit summary for including it:

external link attempts to provide user-friendly answer to question 'For example from where and what kind of data?'.

If would be very helpful if you could indicate what consideration(s) in WP:EL for excluding the link can override that reason for including the link. Again thx. --Thomasmeeks 21:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess you might have had mixed experiences with Derivative, but I think you made valuable contributions and left helpful comments. I have just completed a rewrite of the article. One of the goals was to make the initial parts of the article more elementary and accessible (although it now becomes a bit more advanced later on). I would very much value your comments. Geometry guy 21:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You wrote most of this article, so I thought you'd want to know. Dr. Fuller died this evening, 4 April 2007. He was my grandfather.

— JBazuzi (talk • contribs) 05:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Thomasmeeks, I hope you are well too. Regarding your pet external link: In order to settle our difference, I posted it to Economic data, section External links, where I hope it can survive and be useful to readers. But please do not post it where it has no special meaning and where it challenges WP:EL. Thank you, --Ioannes Pragensis 19:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

...Answer to you post above: You should consider the whole text of the guideline, not only the part about placement of links. Under Links normally to be avoided, it says "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. (...) a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked to an article about a general subject." Which is exactly what you do: a general subject (regression) and link to a special type of data (econometric data). Moreover, because you are probably in a conflict of interest here, you should read also this part of the article. Cheers,--Ioannes Pragensis 21:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your comment, Ioannes Pragensis. I assume that:

• your objective, like mine, is to improve (or maintain) the quality of the article (within Wiki policy)
• you are trying to do just that by raising the question of Wikipedia conflict of interest (from which, however, I believe that I can easily defend myself).

Please allow me to respond more specifically to your comments above. (This is not a long response, but I have taken a great amount of time to formulate it.) I do strongly agree with WP:EL as a guideline. But that is different from a WP policy. Thus, the section you mention is titled "Links normally to be avoided" (italics added). The implicature is that an exception may be justifiable. As stated above, there is justification, I believe, in the first paragraph of WP:EL#What to link. Far from being meaningless, the "source" link is in context and accessible and illustrates sources (and kinds) of data, moreover in an attractive, user-friendly format. Anyone not interested in pursuing the link can ignore it. Where is the downside here? I'd welcome your thoughts. Sincerely, Thomasmeeks 16:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Thomasmeeks, you surely know that regression has many uses, some of them far from econometry. Imagine a biologist who reads the article in your version: she comes to the link, reads your site and comes to the false conclusion, that the method has no meaning for her as a biologist, because it uses econometric data. (I mean WP:NPOV - in this case, do not prefer one branch of science over other branches) - Further, the lead of an article should summarize the whole text, not introduce external links. - Further, we prefer internal links if possible, and it is well possible here "(External) Links should be kept to a minimum." - WP:EL; the internal links will lead the interested economs to your link easily, because I added it to the appropriate page, while the others will choose their way through Wikipedia. - Further, I cannot judge whether you are in a conflict of interests, but you behave as if you were. To enjoy a high credibility here, you should avoid such things. Thank you for understanding.--Ioannes Pragensis 22:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Ioannes Pragensis, thx for your reply. The link in question did have the advantage of being labelled at the top "Data sources" and had many non-econ. cleasificatons (unless econ. is defined imperialistically). It was by far the cleanest layout of sites I compared it with. My intended audience was the inquisitive layperson who might click to it and say "Wow, the data are all around me and there for the taking" and be charmed by the rolling marquee bell curve. I believe that inclusion of link would provide WP:LEAD context conducive to further reading of the article. Still, I do recognize the appropriateness of acceding to a well-defined objection such as you have raised (even if few potential biology majors would be seduced into econ;). Sincerely, Thomasmeeks 12:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I think they would easily find similarly charming data in their own domain :-) I spent once two months by doing complicated regressions with a heap of data about forests and it was really challenging. Have a nice day, --Ioannes Pragensis 12:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to go to war over the use of “ν” to represent the velocity of money in the article on the quantity theory, but its use isn't pointless. The name “velocity” is unfortunate; the velocity of money is more of a frequency, and “ν” is often used to represent frequencies. (I will quickly grant that no one should be flustered if someone refers to nu instead of vee, but I've seen such things happen.) —SlamDiego_←T 00:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, we're both good pacifists, right?* If I had had more space, I'd have said "seemingly pointless." I hadn't visited the article in a while. At first I took the passage as the edit of someone with a troll sense of humor. I quickly concluded otherwise. Still, it struck me as an unnecessary substantive wrinkle, esp. for the level of generality of this article. I do respect the large volume of work you've put into improving the article.

*Anyhow, a prudent stance with you on the other side (;). BW, Thomasmeeks 00:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

My present thinking is that the article on the quantity theory needn't have that wrinkle, since it is in the article on the equation of exchange (which was less substantial when the wrinkle was originally incorporated in the article on the quantity theory). I would urge that the wrinkle be left in the article on the equation of exchange.

(In mid-April, I beefed-up the article on the equation of exchange after a discussion with Radek about where to put a money demand formula that he'd dropped into the article on the quantity theory for lack of a better home.) —SlamDiego_←T 01:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm a little like the dog who knows not to bark beyond a certain point (the Eq. of exch. article in this case). In that article the Nu reference still lacks context & comes across as a puzzling personal preference of economists who do use it. Sorry. --Thomasmeeks 02:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I take your point. Well, how 'bout we note it and explain it in the article on velocity, but pull it also from the article on the equation of exchange? I could be reasonably comfortable with that. —SlamDiego_←T 03:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

(1) The Velocity of money article too? Oh, my. Well, it would be bounding it anyhow. But if the explanation is as above, so far as I can determine, it would still lack context and rationale: Why a Greek letter for vee? Why in particular Nu for vee? Where is the citation for wide enough acceptance to warrant it? If it is merely product differentiation or a display of classical education by originator(s) of the usage, that doesn't warrant it IMO. If it is a less parochial usage, that at least would give some context, though I don't know that it would be worth preserving.

(2) On your initial point above (about velocity as a frequency or rate), in an encyclopedia, we go with the terminology we have, though the rate of turnover of money (as on a conveyor belt) is not so distant from a common notion of velocity IMO. --Thomasmeeks 14:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

1. I'm not precisely sure to what you refer as “context”, but the rationale seems plain. There are two common symbols for frequency, “f” and “ν”; you'll find about a million hits on Google looking for the latter. (I didn't claim merely that “‘ν’ is often used to represent frequencies” in economics; but something more general.) This isn't a use of a Greek vee, though I suppose that the point of an economist writing “M•ν” instead of “M•f” is so that people used to “V” will not be too traumatized. Nu is really just a form of en; the capital nu is “Ν”. (The Romans basically adopted the Greek alphabet, but then took it on a different evolutionary path.)
2. I'm not proposing that we rename velocity; I'm proposing that the encyclopedia let readers know that there's also another symbol in use. The reason that I'd noted this minor datum in some articles without explanation was that I'd simply been thinking in terms of some student sitting in lecture and wondering what the H_ll nu was, when he or she had been expecting vee. (I worry about people being tripped-up by such things because I've so often witnessed it.)

—SlamDiego_←T 22:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

(New line -- I keep losing count of the colons.) Thx for responding. The nub: I believe that if the questioned statement appears in a standard reference on the subject (velocity in the equation of exchange, not "frequency" in general), that satisfies a necessary condition for inclusion of the statement in the article. If not, well, WP policy says no to such inclusion.

The reader might accept that the symbol for velocity in the formula was vee but be puzzled that some economists use nu instead. The lack of context refers to there being no explanation in the article as to why nu would be preferred to vee & no indication of who or how many "some" economists are (or were) who use nu. If there were an attributed source, the reader might at least accept that it is so. There would still be the question of whether it is worth mentioning (and why).

Well, you get about 89 million Google hits for "frequency" with vee instead of Nu. If 89:1 is the ratio among economists for velocity, it's a good reason for not mentioning it (too arcane). At least nu has advantage of a parallel to n in stat (frequency in your usage).

In the above, you write “M•ν” (nu the second term). Let me replace the nu with a vee: “M•v”. Now let's italicize the latter: M•v. I leave it to angels and orthographers to determine that the latter versions are not nu's. I think that your impulse not to puzzle the uninitiated unnecessarily is very sound. --Thomasmeeks 23:25, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Here's one reason why a small vee might sometimes be used instead of large vee: it can be construed as a real ratio, e.g. real income y over real M, analogous to the way k (=1/V) is often written in the Cambridge cash-balance version of the equation of exchange. No reason to construe the small vee as a nu in that case of course. --Thomasmeeks 00:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I've seen “ν” on chalkboards, and heard it called “nu” (so I know I wasn't mistaking a vee). Whether I can find it explicitly named “nu” in a published work is another question. I'll start looking (albeït that this has to be lower priority for me).

The article on the velocity of money explicitly notes that it is a frequency, and (now) notes that nu is a common symbol for frequency. I don't see how the reader will be puzzled.

I quite agree that the glyphs for lower-case nu can be taken as glyphs for vee. If the uninitiated were never to hear reference to a nu standing for velocity, then I could agree that glyphs, rather than characters were the only real worry, and that naming the character would be of very little use.

The reason that the web has so many hits for frequency with a vee is the greater ease of entering a vee than a nu when using a standard computer combined with exactly that glyphic near-equivalence. The reason that people went to the extra effort for those 1000000 nu is because that is one of the two actual standard symbols. (“f” is transparent, but it is already over-worked for generic functions.) I would be very surprised if you could find any standard mathematics or physics text that used vee for frequency.

—SlamDiego_←T 02:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Well then, the oral tradition lives, possibly illustrating the difference between truth and Wikipedia:Verifiability. The latter, we may both agree, is an operative standard for the purpose at hand.

I believe that a reasonable test along the lines you have presented is the following. Using an Advanced Search with Google Scholar, enter:

ν velocity "equation of exchange" (with nu)

v velocity "equation of exchange" (with vee)

The first yields 9 hits. Of these I could find none that use nu to refer to velocity (from the Edit menu Find on this Page search or inspection).

The second had 554 recent hits, including Thomas Humphrey's magisterial survey article. If it ain't noteworthy enough for Humphrey (not to mention the others) well, . . . --Thomasmeeks 13:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Since I haven't, at present, got a reference that names the character as nu (and since you have made a good-faith effort yourself to find one), I have suppressed the report. Should I at some point find such a reference, I will (on the assumption that I'm still wrestling with Wikipedia) restore the report and either add a footnote or secret the reference in an HTML comment. —SlamDiego_←T 01:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

OK. I hadn't seen it before, but the "velocity of circulation" entry in The New Palgrave didn't have it either. BW, Thomasmeeks 15:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted one change that you made to the article on the quantity theory, specifically,

In its modern form, the quantity theory builds upon some straightforward mathematics of the equation of exchange.

The equation that follows isn't itself the equation of exchange, but the reader could be led to think that it were. I believe that you were seeking to replace the wiki-linking removed from the header, but there's a wiki-link to the article on the equation of exchange not much further down in the section. And we want to avoid claiming that a theorist who rejects the classical dichotomy (and thus the equation of exchange) is not “modern”. —SlamDiego_←T 02:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Ain't it the truth? I didn't follow my nose down far enough. --Thomasmeeks 02:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thomas -- please see my comments on the discussion page for Foundations of Economic Analysis. That article needs a more concise summary of the main contribution of the book. --Rinconsoleao 10:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[Transcribed from my talk page.]

On the above article, Slam, I had just completed addressing your (5) on the above Talk page when I discovered your two added comments. The sun may never set on SlamDiego, but it definitely rises for me. And I plan to rise with it. I do not believe that you have addressed my last Edit summary. It is easy to claim correctness if the statement is too obscure to say anything about it. The audience should be not me but the poor but brilliant soul without benefit of much background trying to make sense of the first sentence on the basis of what is there. If you have the itch, hope you have more to say on the above Talk page (on your own schedule of course & not ncessarily soon). But I probably won't be able to respond soon. I know that will disappoint you, but get over it. --Thomasmeeks 01:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll be glad to respond to any specific assertions or questions that you put on the article talk page. Concerning points actually in contention, I'll be glad to direct you to which of the references already in the article deal with those points. The reason that there isn't a whole lot there in that first sentence is that a lot less needs to be there than the British marginalists and their neoclassical heirs thought and think. The extra stuff that they incorporated is discussed in the body of the article. —SlamDiego_←T 01:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I expected my comment

This article is laden with references that make plain that the neoclassical conception of utility is a special case.

to the talk page to be read in the context of my immediate prior edit summary:

It is only a *rate* under the presumption of quantification.

—SlamDiego_←T 05:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Thomas-- just so you know... I just left and extensive message on Slam's talk page, with questions about things I still don't understand in the theory of marginal utility he's writing about... --Rinconsoleao 22:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Before I saw this note, I moved the discussion (which seemed completed) into my tenth orc hive. If either of you wants to resume some part of it, that would be okay, so long as the resumption is on my talk page, rather than in the hive. —SlamDiego_←T 05:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thomas, my copy of "Foundations" is old... a 1969 printing of the 1947 edition. I understand you have a more recent and expanded edition. I just cited Foundations, Ch. 3, in the page on Economic equilibrium, where there was an unreferenced assertion that "most economists caution against attaching a normative meaning to the equilibrium price". The quote I am referring to in Foundations is in the first paragraph of the subsection of Ch. 3 entitled "Convertibility into a Maximum Problem". Could you give me a hand by updating the reference I inserted, with the precise page number from the edition you have?

By the way, I have done (and am still doing) some rewriting of the introduction to the "Foundations" page. You are welcome to edit, revert, etc., as you see fit... but I suppose you don't need me to tell you that! --Rinconsoleao 19:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Thomas, thanks for picking up the baton on this. I keep meaning to get back to it, but I'm flat out at present. JQ 00:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

HI. Yes, Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Request comment on articles would be a good idea I think. Suicup 07:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

The following section was retrieved from a deleted portion of Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor's Talk page at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Random_Editor&oldid=160566077

Hello, TRE. Thank you for acting on the above. I left a request of clarification at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, but you might not be able to respond to it there before it is archived. In any case, could you instead consider looking at a copy of it on my Talk page at User talk:Thomasmeeks#"Economics" article request for semi-protection (with any added comments I can get in there before that)? Thank you. P.S. I read your User page -- all of it. I believe that I am writing the right person, though I am not given to premature optimism. --Thomasmeeks 10:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Indeed you did semi-protect. I regret not being more explicit at User talk:Thomasmeeks#"Economics" article request for semi-protection. Would consider taking another look there? I have added another note (dated 19:15, 26 September 2007) to try to clarify. My thanks. --Thomasmeeks 19:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, again. Interesting idea. What would you think of this refinement: to see whether or how long it would be before vandalism returned to high levels, say over a 2-week period or 50 Edits, whichever came first? 2-weeks or 50 edits (a provisional number) has the advantage of a reasonable sample size or time period, rather than depending on a possibly temporary lull or surge of vandalism vs. good Edits.

If semi-protection returns (which you would determine), I could write up the result for the Talk page. There are already 2 data points for this article as to removing semi-protect in Spring 2007. In the first case, it did not take long for the previous rate of vandalism to return. In the 2nd case, which was close to the end of the Spring semester, my impression is that vandalism did not return to previous levels until late August, possibly because of the school break. While an immediate extension of semi-protect would have been nice, the knowledge gained from this little experiment might help the article as to guidance for future semi-protect & be of wider interest. My thanks. --Thomasmeeks 22:10, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I already semi-pd it Thomasmeeks. -Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 16:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's let the current semi-p run out and then review any new vandalism that pops up. If after ten edits 3 have been vandalism, I will re-protect it for 2 month. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 20:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello Thomas, you can see my comments about reverting some of your recent edits in the History of economic thought page - though don't let me give you the impression that I don't appreciate new additions and material if you've got it (let me guess, you used Samuelson's book in your introductory course?). Do you know though, is Economics (textbook) the same this as Foundations of Economic Analysis, except the more recent version? Wikidea 08:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I recently made some additions to the article Lange Model and I was wondering if you could give me any feedback. Thanks so much! --EMB330 20:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your time and advice. It has been very helpful, and I appreciate your feedback!--EMB330 08:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I have essentially said what I wanted to say, and see no point in my iterating the same arguments. I have to confess that I am unable to understand most of your typical posting; I read them and re-read them and emerge at the other end, not enlightened but dazzled, confused and puzzled as to what it is you are actually saying. For that reason, I am reluctant to continue the discussion, since I would probably be reacting to what is my misunderstanding of your intentions.  --Lambiam 09:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Generalized Ozaki cost function is a Wikipedia:Articles requested for more than two years that recently was created. In view of your many contributions to the Economics article, please consider adding more info to the Generalized Ozaki cost function article. Also, please consider helping out at Wikipedia:Articles_requested_for_more_than_a_year#Business.2FEconomics. Thanks. -- Jreferee t/c 02:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Dear Thomas, a while ago you left me a little message on my page offering assistance with wiki matters. I have stubmled across the page on Lucas' Law. I have, after a quick look on the web been able to find anything about Spencer Lucas and this Law and the page is unreferenced and seems a bit odd. How should one proceed in such a situation? I think what I am not sure of is how in economics we would get regular editors to look at things and check things out. Thanks in advance (Msrasnw (talk) 10:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC))

Dear Thomas, the PPF looks a bit problematic to me. It slopes upwards for a short section. I think this might have damaging implications for standard analysis. Best wishes. PS: Lucas' Law is up for deletion as a hoax (Msrasnw (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC))

Hi there! I was overjoyed to find the {{DEFAULTSORT:}} function. At the bottom of an article, usually near the stub template and categories, put in (for example){{DEFAULTSORT:Hound of the Baskervilles, The}}. This will force the database to always sort the article in this order, regardless of its category, even stub categories. HTH, Her Pegship (tis herself) 17:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. I was intending to continue the section. I'll trim the quote down a little bit but I wanted to keep moving on, basically showing the quote as an example of a very common criticism (namely that mathematical econ ascribes scientific exactness to what may not be a scientific process) as Heilbroner is not the only critic on that front (though he is surely the most famous.

I may add page citations to that quote but I am concerned about how to do that. The article is linked from findarticles, which uses its own pagination, separate from Challenge magazine, whose pagination is unknown to me.

Also, pages within the boland citation face the same trouble, although I think it is actually shown in google books (even though my pdf is from the author's website). thanks for the help.

As for Popper's thoughts on that, the Boland article is pretty enlightening. If you can't find a copy of it available, put something on my talk page and I'll put a link up.  :) Protonk (talk) 18:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch for the help. If you see any problems that I haven't fixed, let me know and I'll fix them. Or you can fix them, it won't hurt my feelings. I'm probably not done w/ the criticism section yet, I might put a few more sentences in there, but the bulk is done. from the looks of it, most of the criticism sections of econ. pages need to be rescued.Protonk (talk) 00:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I've no idea what your cryptic message about jogging at dawn is meant to imply. I stick to my point though - since I first looked at this page, you've been working on it, and blocking people changing it: including my own efforts a while back. It hasn't changed, and I'm afraid that you might need to let go of it for a while. The page is a COMPLETE mess on so many levels. This "In the beginning stuff" and then "Schools of Economicst" (which is actually history) half way down. The random selection of little bits of microeconomic tools in the middle, with a long list of stubs about various economic areas, which really provide the reader no information on their own. And then the bottom third of the page is consumed by "criticism," which is against the style guidelines. It should be integrated into the text. On the other hand, I know you've done a lot with putting in various interesting snippets of references, which makes the list long: but that's not a substitute for proper structure, flowing prose, and readable text. When people try to change the page, you respond with half a hour's worth of reading, and people give up. But you haven't managed to bring the page anywhere near GA. It's not in the slightest personal, or discourteous to say what I mean, and that's that I really do think that you should give it a rest! (And no, you won't convince me otherwise, the page speaks for itself) Wikidea 14:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Which particular edit are you referring to? Please link me to it – thanks! Gary King (talk) 04:34, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to make sure it's clear, the "exchange" discussion is not raising my wikistress at all. Unlike in other discussions I've had it's clear everyone's working toward the same goal. I'm dropping it not for stress reasons, but because I don't put that much importance on the opening sentence. Cretog8 (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC) А

You may find this interesting, as it seems you have a science background? http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=dfx7rfr2_55dh6wv9&hl=en Technate design-An idea for now-Stephen L. Doll skip sievert (talk) 02:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		Great work on the Economics article. I hope it will reach FA status. Eklipse (talk) 18:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Way belated acknowledgement. As my User page says, a "long and variable lag." --Thomasmeeks (talk) 16:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello--I'd appreciate your thoughts on Talk:Economic_imperialism#revisiting_article_name. CRETOG8(t/c) 08:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt. I'll try to do a little more article editing before responding at the link above. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 16:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thomasmeeks, I was joking when I wrote it but after thinking about it, it wondered why not... I posted the discussion point at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Economics#Economic lists. Morphh ^(talk) 20:42, 08 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks I might follow up there. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 21:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

		The Business and Economics Barnstar
		For tirelessly improving the quality of Economics articles on Wikipedia. CRETOG8(t/c) 00:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your meticulousness editing and referencing throughout the economics article space. CRETOG8(t/c) 00:15, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Thx, C8. We've had our agreements & disagreements, but the latter have not been personal. Somewhat to my surprise, this has been true of others as well. Being responsive to the other person's arguments and ever mindful of possible weaknesses in one's own arguments (the better to improve, defend, or abandon them) helps. Then it's not about who "wins" but how an article can be improved. Preaching to the choir, I know, but w possible positive externalities. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 13:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's probably right: because the courses I know are called that: alternatively you could have "economics of the public sector" like some books. Either way, page just needs more writing! Best, Wikidea 03:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• As to your concern about page history being lost, normally any admin making a page move is going to look to see if there is any page history that would be lost and save it, see, for example Wikipedia:Moving guidelines for administrators#Moving procedure for admins. I hope that takes care of your pending concern. WP:RM is not a place to discuss moves, only a central place to notify them, with a brief description. All discussion takes place on the relevant talk page, which is why all discussion at WP:RM is moved to the talk page. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank for attempting to address my concern, which nonetheless remains. What is normal may not apply here. Material comments by User:Anthony Appleyard at Talk:Public sector economics#Proposed title change to "Public economics" and Wikipedia:Requested moves#24 March 2009 strongly suggest that if the titla was charged,the 2005-2007 history of the earlier "Public economics" article would ne excluded per (b) in the latter link. I'd like to be proved wrong here, but it would be a mistake not to take his words at face value. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

How about this then. Delete the RM request (just delete the whole thing, don't try to mark it as on hold), re-submit the history merge request, but without mucking it up by saying anything about moving any pages. Then when you get the history merged the way you like, resubmit the RM request, or if possible, just do the move yourself. Frankly I think that since there is a substantial history at Public economics, and you have spelled out where it goes, there is little chance of anyone getting it wrong if it was just left as a normal RM. In point of fact, the same admin, User:Anthony Appleyard, that does most of the history merges also would likely close the RM. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 21:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking back, I think the issue was that the article was in a vastly different style than most other articles, making it appear to be an essay. I think the best option is to restore it to your namespace, turn it into a more typical article, and repost it. If you want, I can restore the article into, say, User:Thomasmeeks/Evil and the God of Love. — Deckiller 16:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

That sounds great, Deckill. I have put it on My watchlist, so it should pop up whenever. Appreciate your responding. I'd prefer my last edit (which might be my first!), if you have it. If I had known about that "essay" charge, I could easily have refuted it. I was attempting to convey the substance of the book, not my thoughts on it.

By the way, if the article had it been on My watchlist, do you believe that as a metter of course its Request for deletion would have been brought to my attention before its deletion? --Thomasmeeks (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Most likely. Admins have to go through the speedy deletion process extremely quickly to catch up with the backlog, which often leads to deletion — unless original editor or someone else disputes the speedy deletion tag or promises to work on the article. Well, that was the practice back in 2006. — Deckiller 05:00, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Deckiller#6 July 2006 article deletion http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Hick&oldid=80104354#Evil_and_the_God_of_Love.2C_1966.2C_rev._ed..2C_1978

As to the above, I regret filling your TP again. I do note that of late there have been few other admins taking action on the MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist page (maybe with good reason in general). I feel that I have gotten procedural justice in your leaving the matter open. In any case can you suggest any way that I could reasonably request a review of my request, in case lack of further action is due to the request being overlooked rather than rejected? Thank you. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 16:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You could leave a message on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Stifle ([[User

talk:Stifle/wizard|talk]]) 18:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Very kind. (And another chance to fix my sp. above.) Given a perhaps understandable admin reluctance to revisit (not to mention possible heavy overhead in learning what you could do in your sleep :-), I'm not overly optimistic, but I am grateful, And I'll given it a try. Tnank you. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up per above: My review request is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive198#Request review of MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist request. Again tnank you, Stifle. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 14:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

In long overdue recognition of your super-duper civility, I would like to present you with this Civility Award:

		Civility Award
		Thomasmeeks: Wikipedia's nicest guy. LK (talk) 14:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

You civility puts us all to shame! LK (talk) 14:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, not you and others, I'm happy to acknowledge. Thank you for your comment. I feel honored, although not unmindful of Leo Durocher's remark on "nice guys" ;).

I took a temporary WP editing break a while back for extraneous reasons. The break was intended as temporary, but I have mostly not gotten back into the editing mode. I hope that the next WP phase is approaching where teams of informed editors will be plentiful enough to conserve or build on earlier efforts, rather than making good, scholarly writing a target. The latter is doubtless the exception but I've sure noticed them. And they illustrate the vulnerabilty of WP. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 16:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Look at Nicholas Rescher's works (books and papers) for descriptions of Peirce's pioneering contributions to the economics of research and development. Thanks, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 02:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:57, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate the invitation. As I understand it, however, the reviewer would be constrained to not revert apparently good-faith but junk Edits (that degraded the article). Why not just revert it and say why? There certainly is a need for more semi-protection and banning repeat offenders. I don't decline the invitation. I'm just unlikely to make much use of the privilege. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 21:30, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

In Wikipedia:Citing sources, as far as I can see all the examples put the last name first in references.

Also, I've replied to your query about renaming reference sections on my talk page. Duoduoduo (talk) 18:32, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I interpret them as being merely examples, with only one format presented for simplicity's sake. That's supported by the section Wikipedia:Citing sources#Citation styles, which suggests that any accepted style can be used. Your link suggests uniformity of format, whichever chosen. But my section link gives some leeway. The Chicago Manual of Style has different formats for footnotes and "refs" (my usage) with first-name-first then last-name-first orderings respectively. That makes more sense for alphabetizing "Refs," as to ordering, esp. for more than a small number. I believe that that is also the much more common scholarly practice. Oh, well.

Hope you wouldn't mind my commenting on an unrelated matter here. Your user page suggests more than a trivial knowledge of philosophy. I guess I could claim as much for myself. Curiously, the principle of charity in philosophy I think has been an aid to me in WP editing. It has helped me to grasp the perspectives of other editors, even of those with whom I might strongly disagree -- the better to try explaining why I think my own Edits might be an improvement. I appreciate your "charity" as to the case at hand. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 16:09, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to principle of charity. Interesting. Sounds like WP:Assume good faith. Duoduoduo (talk) 16:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Related, yes. I regard your link as useful provisional rule for "keeping the peace" and allowing those of like mind to engage in good dialogs and form coalitions for article improvement. In a similar fashion, the P of C allows constructive engagement or criticism even with fierce differences of views. It might also be a nice, if not always available, alternative to war. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 16:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	Good job addressing this and that throughout the economics space! Duoduoduo (talk) 15:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Happy it worked out "righter". "So little time, so much to do," to quote Churchill. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 21:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

In mathematical economics's list, you unhid Edward C. Prescott. Truly Mathematical Reviews lists 14 papers by Prescott, some of which are mathematically technical. However, I am unaware of any profound contributions to mathematical economics by Prescott, although some of his papers marginally improve previous results in mathematical economics. IMHO, his contributions to mathematical economics is a level below those of the listed economists. His most celebrated contributions are conceptual papers in macroeconomic theory, which do use mathematical techniques (at the level of the highest macroeconomic theorists). If the list includes Prescott, then shouldn't it be expanded to include another 50 or so macro-economc theorists, whose work is at the same mathematical level?

(Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen was a pioneering mathematical economist of the 1950s, but I am skeptical that he is at the level of those listed now --- this is a matter of judgment, of course.)

Can you name any source calling Prescott a "mathematical economist"?

Thanks! Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 16:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

There you go, rattling my cage again. Well, let me make the best case I can & let you pick it apart, if you like. It's nifty that you have access to Mathematical Reviews listings for Prescott. 14 papers, eh? I'd curious as to how that compares with the other 50 macroeconomists. Looks like few of them are winners of the Erwin Plein Nemmers Prize in Economics for "major contributions to new knowledge or the development of significant new modes of analysis" (bolding added). http://www.dictionaryofeconomics.com/article?id=pde2008_P000321&q=Edward%20C.%20Prescott%20mathematical&topicid=&result_number=1 cites P for being best known for his work on optimal design of economic policy & pioneering "many of the standard contemporary techniques and tools in macroeconomics" (bolding added). Try a search of edward prescott mathematical on Google Scholar. Prescott stacks up pretty well against Hurwicz, Maskin, or Myerson mathematical, also listed at ME. I do understand what I think is your point in wanting to confine the term mathematical eoonomist within reasonable bounds. I just think that he's big enough to qualify. To show how close a call it is for me, I would not favor including in ME P's (original) co-authors of Recursive Methods in Economic Dynamics: Nancy Stokey & Robert Lucas.

Georgescu-Roegen was indeed "a pioneering mathematical economist of the 1950s" but also of the 1930s and beyond. And the heading is ME of the 20th century, not just today. He's a cult figure too, but that's not why I unhid him. He was seriously cited by some indubitably great mathematical economists, like Samuelson and Arrow. However, if you wish to "purify" the list by purging it 2 such versatile MEs, I wouldn't squawk. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 23:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I trust the "rattling the cage" was written in good humor! :) I didn't know that Prescott was supposed to coauthor that book! I do know that measure-theorists and probabilists have raised concerns about the mathematical quality of the literature in this stochastic economics: Stochastic processes and stochastic decision processes require great attention to detail: It takes 6 months to teach the basic definitions for the former (according to a quote in Kallenberg's textbook).

My interests are more in general equilibrium theory and game theory than in macroeconomics: I can name lots of papers and contributions by Hurwitcz (climbing the bean pole (Simplex algorithm) with Dantzig, linear programming in topological vector spaces, the mechanism literature, etc.) and Myerson (e.g. see Roth's collection on the Shapley Value), but none by Prescott (possibly ignorance on my part). Prescott did write a paper with Lucas extending some results of Debreu to infinite dimensions, but I don't recall that paper being as influential as the Riesz space papers of Kreps, etc.

I agree with the cult-like appear of G-R. I even checked out his book on entropy, etc., for curiousity. However, imho, his main contributions to input-output economics and linear programming are below that of many Nobel prize winners (e.g. ~Robert Dorfman, Robert Solow, Oskar Morgenstern, John Kemeny, Gerald L. Thompson, etc.) who are not listed.

I think that Prescott should go from ME, and lean towards removing G-R. Thanks, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 06:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes (self-deprecating is at least safe). And, yes, the Stokey-Lucas-Prescott link is different from Stokey-Lucas w Prescott. So, I'd withdraw that point. But the bigger point is P having developed the tools that made it to the text. Samuelson has been similarly criticized for merely sketching his proofs. I believe that number of papers is less relevant than overall mathematical influence per above. But here the textbook writers (but not in applied control theory?) might have the last word in defining the subject, rather than the mathematical revolution of macro per above. I believe that the entry by Stefano Zamagni (1987 [2008]), "Georgescu-Roegen, Nicholas," The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics, v. 2, pp. 515-16, trumps whatever opinions either of us (not to mention others per above) might offer on G-R's qualifications as to fundamental contributions across a range of subjects. One onther relevant datum: in 1971 G-R was recognized by the American Economic Association as a Distinguished Fellow, along w Tjalling Koopmans. That's a big deal. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 11:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

... and a cult figure? I lean toward counting him as a mathematical economist, but I'm somewhat agog that he's considered a cult figure! I can only make educated guesses at who might consider him one (besides his former students, like me), so I'd be grateful for any more authoritative explanation of who the members of this cult are!

(Full disclosure: Georgescu was chair of my Ph.D. orals committee, a traumatic experience that garnered me lots of sympathy and many "props" from my fellow grad students. I also worked under him as both an RA and TA, as well as taking several classes from him. So some might believe I knew him too well to be objective in evaluating whether he should be included in the ME list.)

As the discussion in the previous section implies, there's a gray area between who should be on the ME list and who shouldn't. (NGR would probably describe any such category as a dialectical concept, surrounded by a penumbra.) But if an economist whose "most celebrated contributions are conceptual papers ... [that] use mathematical techniques (at the level of the highest ... theorists)" doesn't qualify for the list, then who does? (Italics added.) Clearly, no one can surpass the highest level!

The lead sentence of Samuelson's foreword to Georgescu's Analytical Economics (1966) says outright, "Professor Georgescu-Roegen has been a pioneer in mathematical economics." Later in the foreword, Samuelson says that Leontief's input-output analysis "has gained much from the papers in Part III of this collection [of essays]."

Georgescu's first love in economics was probably utility theory. If you're already familiar with Samuelson's theory of revealed preference (1938), then you're struck by its similarities to Georgescu's "directional utility" in his earlier paper, "The Pure Theory of Consumer's Behavior" (QJE, 1936). Indeed, in a note in his Collected Scientific Papers, Samuelson explicitly acknowledges his intellectual debt to Georgescu's paper. (You're right, Thomas, NGR's contributions did pre-date 1950.)

Finally, besides utilty theory and closely related topics, Georgescu also wrote numerous mathematical papers in the theory of production and economic development. Comparing his work as a mathematical economist with, say, Hicks, I don't see how you could include one but not the other. As I said, I'm probably biased, but it's hard to argue with Samuelson's conclusion. Just sayin'.

(BTW, I started a new section only because the one above was getting unwieldy. I didn't mean to clutter up your talk page, Thomas.) Cheers. --Jackftwist (talk) 22:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Amazing. Small world. Timely visit. New section called for under the circumstance. I tell myself that I leave the clutter as a filter.

Well, there are cults, and there are cults. Certainly a distinguished figure no matter. I had a great Theory teacher — not in NGR's league, but who is? Still, I can appreciate your high regard for NGR by analogy. (A pity that the e umlaut in his name got lost somewhere ;.)

Quite a Sam. quotation & in the right place. He reiterated that high regard in his Nobel lecture as well. I did have the 1936 article in mind from the New Palgrave article.

What a fortunate resource you are for the Wiki econ project. Generous of you to contribute. In the present case, who can object if WP allows such a trialectical interaction? --Thomasmeeks (talk) 00:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

"trialectical"? LOL

And thanks for reminding me of Samuelson's Nobel lecture; I'd completely forgotten about it. BTW, I'm having serious 2nd thoughts about the umlaut. I sometimes saw it printed that way when I was a grad student (long, long ago), but all the printed references I have at hand, including 2 of his books, omit it. So does his signature under his photo at http://homepage.newschool.edu/het//profiles/georgescu.htm Also, at least according to the WP article, the Romanian alphabet doesn't show any use of the umlaut. To add to the confusion, in Foundations Samuelson used the spelling "Georgescue" in a footnote referencing the 1936 QJE article. Both of those might just be variations in the way Romanian names got Anglicized. (Further NGR trivia: the 2 or 3 biographical sketches I found on-line refer to his doctoral degree as a Ph.D., but I'm pretty sure he wrote it as a D. Stat., and statistics was his primary field at the Univ. of Paris.) Warm regards. --Jackftwist (talk) 23:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. That all sounds right. On the spelling, it might be that you're recalling ö (Americanized as oe), e.g. Röntgen or Schönberg. Nice French degree terms at http://www.jstor.org/pss/2957794 (w "Show full citation" link at top)+ autobiographical references mentioned there. (I'm a bit too lazy to use JSTOR for the full article from my desktop through the local university library.) http://www.ethicalmarkets.com/2009/05/13/the-politics-of-economics/ suggests that G-R did not underestimate the significance of his later work. BW, Thomasmeeks (talk) 00:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry for saying "cult", which could be mis-interpreted. The "entropy law" book leaped over the hurdle of Ben & Jerry's, earning an affirmative answer to the question, "Is it weird enough?"; that's why I looked at it. He must have been an inspiring as well as formidable presence, who would have strengthened any economics department. Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah. So, the D. Stat. connection melted you (; ). Well, I believe that it was I who used the "cult figure" term in the preceding section, although obviously not to diminish G-R -- rather as a gentle comment on those who might wish to demonstrate the depth of their ideological concerns or otherwise promote a pseudo-scientific agenda (not to exclude the valid application of G-S's ideas to practical concerns). P.S. I'll put up a bit up on the Econ sidebar talk page (to which you can add or not) before any sidebar Edit. If the outcome is mutually acceptable, that itself might be worth an additional comment. BW, Thomasmeeks (talk) 17:06, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Thomas. I didn't get the Xena reference, but I assume it was a good one. I didn't mean to disparage your citations. I thought they were excessive for the current state of the article, but extremely useful for future editors and readers. You're obviously doing some "transition work". Maybe it'd be easier to keep your workflow going on a userpage draft, just because for as many great researchers like you there are Xena?-like editors like me. The discrepancy in approach was probably due to the fact that the article read much less well than all of the work behind would suggest, but I realize you were going to keep working on it. As for the introductory bullet-point list, it is not commonly used in introductions. Often lists are a sign of information that would be better integrated in an article. But I didn't intend to disrupt your work, so, go ahead and add back whatever you prefer. Ocaasi (talk) 14:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

OK. There was a very recent merger as indicated on the Talk p., which multiplied an obvious kind of unevenness in referencing. I might add a little more to the Talk per your points. But if you'd like to raise concerns there, I would not discourage that. Of course, I'd try to respond constructively, if I thought I had something worth adding. I do believe that the links win the fn. refs. could be of great immediate benefit for those interested in pursuing the subject either on their own or toward article improvement. I agree that a textual segueing of the refs. is desirable, but I'm unrepentant at my referencing efforts for the pre-merger EoR article (copied at Talk:Economics of religion#Content of 'Economics of religion' article to be merged into 'Theory of religious economy'). And that's so, even if I don't do another edit, in the assurance that others will add their own contribution or take up "the baton". Hope that you stick around for article improvements if the subject intrigues you. And for the record, I sat on a rough draft of Economics of religion for months after compiling references & more less ordering them. The latter, IMO, is at least a demanding as fleshing out an article. Anyhow, thanks for responding. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 16:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain the Xena reference? Ocaasi (talk) 14:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure. The link has a Xena pic. In the 1 or 2 parts of episodes that I saw, X was indeed a warrior, stern & principled, out to bring about a more just order. It was a charming fantasy, probably the only such in which a (by-then former?) U.S. Sec. of State appeared: Madeline Albright. I think that you are prepared to call the WP edits as you see them in trying to make a better WP order. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 15:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay in responding; I must have overlooked you message (oops). Quite. IANAE (I am not an economist!) so whatever needs doing, do it or tell me how I can help :) - Jarry1250 ^{[Humorous? Discuss.]} 12:51, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, thank you, J. Your reply was way fast enough for me, as I'm in it for the long run.

Per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PPF_opportunity_cost_inverted.svg, what would help is:

• a straight-line chord, say red, connecting the ends of the PPF curve on each axis (appropriately unlabelled currently and to remain so) with a midpoint dot labelled E from above the chord.
• a PPF label above the blue PPF line down a bit from point B (to distinguish the PPF line from the added red line).
• moving the D letter in the figure enough to the left so that the added chord does not intersect the D.

I imagine that the above is no easy task. So, please accept my deep thanks your for your help. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 14:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

• Please see my dissenting note at User_talk:Jarry1250/Archive_10#Inverted_PPF_figure. --Jackftwist (talk) 08:21, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22Production-possibility+frontier%22+%22economies+of+scale%22&btnG=Search&as_sdt=80000000000000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0 http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=tpdYD-6lGlsC&oi=fnd&pg=PA268=onepage&q&f=false#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=tpdYD-6lGlsC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=tpdYD-6lGlsC&lr=&source=gbs_navlinks_s Xiaokai Yang (1994). "Endogenous vs. Exogenous Comparative Advantage and Economies of Specialization vs. Economies of Scale," Journal of Economics, 60(1), pp. 29-54. Reprinted in Xiaokai Yang et al. ed. (2005), An Inframarginal Approach to Trade Theory, v. 1, pp. 261-290. World Scientific.

Good grief, where did September go? Sorry for the delay in getting back to you on 2 items. I've been completely absorbed in a few other non-WP projects, seemingly forever and with no end in sight. I've only been able to check WP developments once a week or so, and only briefly even then. To make matters worse, my orange new-message notification box works only intermittently, so I don't always know about new messages. (This is a known issue to the Powers That Be, apparently.) Besides, at best, communicating through posts on talk pages seems extremely inefficient -- it's too easy to overlook a new post that's several "indent" levels down, at least for me. Would that the system were more flexible and powerful. End of whining.

2 items:

1. Thanks for your very kind reply with all the info about Georgescu and the suggestion that I add the Samuelson quote about him to his article. That's high on my list of WP things to do ... but cf. supra!
2. Re the PPF article and Krugman's "extra special" case of identical linear PPFs: in retrospect, I realized that my initial comment actually summarized my point more succinctly than I usually manage to do. :-) If you think further discussion would be fruitful, I'll try to expand a bit on my previous comments.

Cheers, Jack --Jackftwist (talk) 23:18, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's the real world & there's WP. The former should always come first IMO. Anything on beyond that is recreation. WP progress is never assured anyhow. Let me first respond at the quiet location where you left your earlier comment. I think something may come of this. Whether it'a a figure or more on WP (with text to explain) or a diagram on the back of an envelope to make the point that output specialization can lead to increased total output and gains from trade remains to be seen. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 22:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I see, however we have to take into account three important facts:

1. The comma does not belong to the link;
2. it is an external link, not a footnote;
3. footnotes are different because the whole link is after the punctuation, here the punctuation was in the middle of the link.

Basilicofresco (msg) 14:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello there, i saw you welcoming anonymous user 69.114.127.201 and i thought maybe you like to join the Anonymous User Protection Squad (AUPS)‎! thanks, Maysara (talk) 14:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thx for invite, but I'm booked up. For the case at hand, I observed several good Edits. That's why I responded as I did. Of course compassion is in general a way good thing. I do think advising unregistered users as to benefits of signing up might be one of the most valuable things to impart. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 19:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course Thomas, sign me up. I think the page is just a list of ideas and definitions and says nothing in particular (though the introduction isnt so bad). I have the feeling that as soon as someone does anything bold it will be immediately reverted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shabidoo (talk • contribs) 13:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I think that the article is not only disorganised and in-comprehensive to a non economics student, but also as you originally thought I had felt, very unclear. Its a little irritating, because this article is viewed so much (thousands of views a day). Almost all the activity is of people like cretog cutting things out and challenging sources which would be a good thing if others were writing and revising and making it a good article, which it seems at the moment is not the case. Any ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shabidoo (talk • contribs) 17:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

(Side points: (1) I did say that I'd look for your comment on your TP. Your response is here now, so I'll continue here. (2) I believe that you meant to say "incomprehensible" above.) Well, your additional points have multiplied. Each one raises different issues. I'm afraid that anything I'd have to say will come across as trite. There used to be a warning below the "Save page" button to the effect of "If you are not prepared to have your writing criticized mercilessly, stop here." Maybe that should be reinstated. The article TP archives do show earlier discussions on organization. As to whether all reorganization were for the better, well, that's a different matter. At least anyone is free to propose or attempt reorganization. The article TP is appropriate place to raise questions, as you have. One proposal I made is posted on the TP, which I'm currently working on & have been for months. Cretog was relying on wp:reliable. We try to make piecemeal improvements on each of the points you raise, hope that others see it that way, & support them with the best rationales that we can. For myself, to rephrase, I do take your comments seriously & will try to address them in my Edits, both now & later, as I think others will who look at the Econ TP. Of course, you might not like them anyhow, but they still might be better than they otherwise would be. Have a good one. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 19:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay ... yes it is multiplying. Lets leave it for now. Thanks for the english correction, I have lived outside an English speaking country for 10 years now. And yes Cretog is a very very good and necessary editor for sure! But as I said and you seem to agree, an article cannot become a good one with only Cretogs :) Shabidoo | Talk 20:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

OK. Wow. Well, welcome back.

Keeping an article from getting worse is very important, & C. has more than paid his dues in the course of the article. On the points we may agree on there's still plenty to work on, and I think that addressing those points will really help. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 02:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi there. I saw your note on VernoWhitney's talk page. I've re-written the article without copyvio on Talk:Joseph J. Spengler/Temp. So at least there will be something to replace the current article if it has to get deleted. But frankly, with all the palaver of getting permissions, it seems to me that editors' time is better spent actually re-writing the article. The blanked version as it's currently written isn't in encyclopedic style and reads like an appreciation from colleagues (which it is) rather than a biographical article. In fact, there's very little actual biographical detail in it. I've tried to address these problems in the re-write. If permission is eventually granted by Duke University, quotes from the extra material can easily be added to the article. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Impressive effort, Voceditenore.*

On the article, I do believe that there is nothing in wp:External links that requires the extra level of footnotes for the JSTOR extracts. It could be parsimoniously done along th e lines you're suggesting as for example:

JJS, 1951. "The Population Obstacle to Economic Betterment," American Economic Review, 41(2), pp. 343-354 (via JSTOR [so linked the 1st time if at all]).

Of course, everything in the Duke source of course need not be included in the article (and probably shouldn't given a different audience).

* Also impressed by your fields & interests. You mention Italian on your page & surely one of the most beautiful languages — with enough time, worth learning just to sing its music in the shower(; ). Thank you for your efforts and writing here. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 21:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I usually write about long dead opera singers, librettists and composers and operas that haven't been performed in at least a hundred years. It's a great area— no one ever monkeys with them. ;-) So, once in a while, I take a break to rescue stuff on other subjects. I'm glad you said that about the jstor links. I totally agree and have removed them. They were in the original version of the article (with even worse formatting) and I was reluctant to wipe out someone else's work completely before I got some feedback. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 04:50, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was insufficiently clear in conveying above that the link that followed the page citation for an article should not be repeated, that is, "via JSTOR," not "via JSTOR," if there was any further mention of JSTOR. IMO, even the 1st mention of JSTOR is unnecessary, because the reader is interested in the content, not the source. But editors could reasonably differ on that.

The JSTOR-publication page link in the above was intact. IMO that it is an advantage to the reader who wishes to know something about the content of a Spengler article or book. For other readers, the link is harmless. On another matter, I did not study it closely enough before, but I think there is an advantage to the reader in incorporating the full source in the fn. with a page-specific cite if appropriate, saving the reader the trouble of going down the extra level to "Sources." You could even eliminate the Sources section in that way (possibly giving the full pages in square brackets to follow the page-specific cite in the fn., as in Kelley (1992) ..., p. 142. [Pp. 142-147.] Thanks. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 13:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah! I see what you mean (I read your note too fast). I personally dislike external links anywhere but in the References, Sources, or External links sections. Re the shortened footnote format... this is what is normally used in the articles in the fields I usually edit in and is to be found in all the Featured Articles, e.g. Tosca. But you have more experience with articles in economics, so feel free to make any changes/adjustments you think are appropriate. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 15:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

OK. It may have been misleading of me to cite wp:External links in that that's all about ext. links not used in citations (last paragraph of Lead}. What it's laying out is the guideline of not using ext. link in the body of the article (exclusive of footnoted cited sources). Wikipedia:Citing sources#Links and ID numbers encourages use of ext. links for cited sources (an easy way to settle a dispute!). I prefer going to the exact page if possible for such a link. Thanks. --Thomasmeeks (talk)

I tried to make the change that I think you were wanting. Morphh ^(talk) 23:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

If you come to Sweden, then I'll buy you a beer! Skål! Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 21:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Deal. And if you come to the States, I'll buy you a haircut* (provided you're not in the U.S. already, in which case the opposite ; ). Best wishes no matter the outcome elsewhere, Thomasmeeks (talk) 21:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC) * A variation on a favorite pedagogical example illustrating why PPP may not equalize the home price haircuts in India and the U.S., for example.

I'll have to look at that.

I should confess two bold and perhaps over-reaching edits. First, I put mathematical economics as a super-category (including game theory and optimization); it would be good if there was an article on mathematical methods of economics, besides mathematical economics, imho. Second, I did some extensive and bold (perhaps fool-hardy) rewriting of the mathematical economics article; I added a few references from Nobel-prize winners, writing about mathematical economics, thinking their opinions may rival Heilbroner's, who was the advisor of a good acquaintance of mine, btw! Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 00:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

OK. I do have ME and Econ sidebar on my WP:WATCHLIST menu tab, so I would have known of those changes. As a courtesy, the above is fine (going beyond what's on my Watchlist). And it does give an opportunity for more informal exchange off the Econ sidebar Talk page or for something less abrupt than an Edit summary of the Econ sidebar. I do have an opinion on the latest Econ sidebar, which without the piped link is: Mathematical economics (Game theory  · Mathematical optimization)
Unfortunately, the parentheses suggest (incorrectly) that GT & MO comprise ME, i.e., ME = GT + MO. Now GT might be described as a subfield or technique of ME, although I know not a single textbook of ME or ME methods that so includes it -- with good reason: GT is too big a field to be contained in ME. It may be fine in Mathematical economics. But ME ≠ GT + MO. Better that the parentheses were removed to avoid suggesting that they are the only 2 techniques of ME or that they together are ME . Even with removal of the parentheses, most of the advantages sidebar (A) over the current sidebar (call it (C)) remain. [Thomasmeeks]

In economics, game theory is a subfield of mathematical economics and optimization is a mathematical method. In mathematics, game theory and optimization are the primary mathematical methods of used by economists.

Listing two mathematical methods included under mathematics, does not imply that mathematical methods or mathematical economics is exhausted by optimization and game theory --- no more than does listing a lot of subfields imply that they exhaust economics. (I need sleep.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 03:28, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll discuss here only what pertains to the Econ sidebar. My big point (above), ignored in your comment, was to suggest removing the parentheses to avoid the misleading suggestion (irrespective of your intents) that ME = GT + MO, thus: Mathematical economics • Game theory • Mathematical optimization
Of course I have other concerns about MO there at all & placement of GT in that section rather than the next section. (Per below, I hope my comment here is quite unnecessary as to the future of the Econ sidebar.) --Thomasmeeks (talk) 17:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I do agree that hierarchy (a recursive ordering as Wold might have put it) is important. But (C) and (B) are the wrong ways to achieve that IMO. Rather, the hierarchy should be implied in the ME article, which is now the case. The earnest reader, whom the sidebar should seeking to assist, is wasting time going to Mathematical optimization, when s/he could be going to ME instead, which has the MO link there with an Econ context. Similar remarks apply to Statistical methods per Econometrics, including links to the former. And to Game theory per Industrial organization. Some of these links resulted from recent Edits by me in response to your concerns. I think that the reader would have been better served if you had declared "Victory!" and proceeded to adopt sidebar (A). Then the sidebar would be more reader-friendly & more elegantly simple IMO -- an ironic current sidebar deficiency if the subject itself relates to mathematics. Peace, Thomasmeeks (talk) 02:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you have a point. It's better to add content to the mathematical economics article than to debate the sidebar. I added mathematical techniques today, mentioning some economic consequences occasionally.

In general, I don't like the historical (genetic fallacy) approach of mathematical economics, which is based on histories by literary historians (of economics). That stuff should be moved into a "History of mathematical economics article". Modern mathematical economics can just as well begin with calculus and Samuelson.

Informally, I would like to kill the section on "Applications" and on "Criticisms". Heilbroner is just meandering in an interview and Keynes is being oh-so-clever and polemical. Are there such "criticisms" sections of mathematical psychology, biology, linguistics, physics?

Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 03:28, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

(1T). Thank you for your comments above, which I'm encouraged by as to the Econ sidebar. (You of course do not forfeit your right to revert or otherwise modify Econ sidebar (A) if I edit (A) into the Econ sidebar in the next day or so, with a Talk page note first and discussion continuing on that Talk page in case of dispute.)

(2T). On the ME article, I like the Criticism section, which also gives MEists a chance to respond. I do think that a more accurate heading would be "Criticisms and responses" rather than "Criticism of mathematical economics." Such a new heading I think would at least partially address your concern. You'd want to be very cautious about deleting without consensus in any case. On the historical method of presentation, Debreu presents an impressive non-technical counterexample in Econometica (Nov. 1986) revised as Debreu, Gerard (1987, 2008). "mathematical economics," The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd Edition. Abstract.

These should be excellent resources. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 23:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear Thomas,

You are a good editor who writes clear and accessible articles, and your copy-editing skills and economics knowledge could do wonders on the Shapley-Folkman lemma, which just received GA status.

Best regards, Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 22:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations, KW. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 11:47, 21 January 2011 (UTC) P.S. I did reply almost so yesterday but apparently neglected to Save-page it. (So, almost as good, right?) I do have 3 suggestions.

1. If there is no Talk page dissent, change the title to "Shapley-Folkman theorem" in line w The New Palgrave article. Or possibly the "Shapley-Folkman-Ross theorem". (Of course, you might have a better reason not to change it. If you wish to pursue this, Wikipedia:Moving a page has general info on how to proceed. You could do it yourself or, given possible Wikipedia:Redirect problems, request a "page move" at Wikipedia:Requested moves.
2. Remove the Econ sidebar template. Format problems alone are sufficient to warrant it (at least on my browser, which shows it overlapping with blockquote text (possibly a function of my security setting but why should I have to lower my security setting to see something on WP?). In addition, there is the argument that the article is not about a field or subdiscipline of economics. So, what's the point of including the sidebar?
3. Most of my formatting tricks are in articles I've worked on heavily, such as (for mercifully short ones) Cultural economics and Economic imperialism (economics).

Sorry for not responding here, before. I don't know why I missed your response. Let me respond to your suggestions:

1. If there is no Talk page dissent, change the title to "Shapley-Folkman theorem" in line w The New Palgrave article. Or possibly the "Shapley-Folkman-Starr theorem". (Of course, you might have a better reason not to change it.)

The only argument I can give for your suggestion is that the SF lemma is called a "theorem" in Starr's appendix. Starr modestly calls his corollary the SF theorem in his GE textbook, but this seems confusing.

However, Starr gives a corollary to another SF theorem, so it would be confusing to call both results SF theorems. (Starr's corollary is called the Shapley-Folkman-Starr theorem.) I follow Arrow & Hahn is reducing confusion by distinguishing the SF lemma from the SF theorem, and calling Starr's corollary the SFS theorem when it's simpler. Thus, I don't see any need to move the article.

2. Remove the Econ sidebar template.

Done long ago. Sorry again for my delay in responding.

I'll have to look at your other articles! Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz  (Discussion) 20:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

There's a famous review by Leonard J. Savage in JPE of Samuelson's Foundations, which I'll provide now (unless you're already on it).  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

You could be the 200th supporter of a worthy candidate if you act quickly! (He is running about 197/2 so my canvassing may be forgivable.) Best regards,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 00:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Thomas! Nice to see that you've returned. Please look at History of macroeconomic thought. Thanks!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:43, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Very nice stub you've created on Henry Higgs. He has needed an article in Wikipedia for some time now. Good on ya! Cheers. N2e (talk) 13:44, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I was encouraged enough to put even more of the good stuff I wanted to add. That should be for me as to HH. The EJ 1940 ref. (via JSTOR) would be a logical place to look for other nuggets. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 23:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Optimization theory is broader, including the study of equilibria, stationary points, fixed points, and related topics. All of the mentioned topics are of great interest in economics, and so I generally favor "optimization" over "maximization".

(Minimization is also important.)

Cheers,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The Mathematics Subject Classification (MSC2010) indexes mathematical economics and game theory as 91. You might enjoy or find use for the more precise MSC sub-classifications.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 15:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, a different disciplinary ecology. It is possibly of use for citing or linking in the appropriate section(s) of Applied mathematics. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 13:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Finally got around to using the above. Thanks. Please feel free to tidy up as necessary. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 20:07, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

With your addition to start of economics and best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 21:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC))

Thank you. You showed the way, with the refs. to back everything up as well. I'm fortunate too that I had the extra week to try getting it "righter". Cheers, Thomasmeeks (talk) 21:27, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Hello Thomasmeeks, a few days ago I run across the economic methodology page to which you contributed. I found a page with great sources but relativly little content, and tagged as such. Being bold I decided to make it into a bibliography. However, as a novice editor, I now find myself in need of guidance as to how to jump-start a real article for this topic, and reformat the old article as a bibliography. As with most academic economists, I do not know much about this field. Any suggestion would be appreciated. Yaniv256 (talk) 20:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Yaniv256. Amusing comment above about "As with most acad. econ....", & more so if you're not an academic economist. (For purposes of discussion, I'll assume assume you're not, unless you indicate otherwise.)

1st, some history. The article was started by an academic economist (not me) who probably has as much professional econ credentials as any WP editor. I do not think that it was a mistake for him to write as an article, rather than a bibliography. I added topics and references by topic. But it's still an econ article, irrespective of the quality level. I wouldn't be surprised if more than one academician would say linked references classified by subject and discussion thread are an excellent way to begin article on a subject such as EM.

One thing I didn't do is add an explanatory section on the Talk page, such as I did elsewhere for other articles such as at Talk:Cultural economics#Ways of improving article, Talk:Rural economics#Ways of improving article, & Talk:Monetary economics#Ways of improving article, which goes to your inquiry.

Your user page sounds like you have a nice technical background for one interested in econ. Long-term (and not to preclude your doing things in the meanwhile), if you don't yet have a lot technical background in econ, I'd say the best way to add an econ meth article would be to learn more econ.

For what it's worth, I do like your enthusiasm.

You refer to WP:BOLD. I take that you're also ever mindful of the WP:BOLD#...but please be careful section. I've found that the principle of charity from philosophy is a good check of my own opinions, like a lawyer mastering the arguments of the other side to check for possible problems in his own position.

If you could bring yourself in good WP conscience, to revert back to the earlier title, I certainly would not object. But that's up to you. Thanks. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll do that. BTW and not that it should make any difference, I'm a US top 10 econ PhD student. Kind regards Yaniv256 (talk) 20:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, that's encouraging* and admirable§. I might do a little more tidying up, I hope inoffensively. I'm glad too that you did not add back the template. Any reader can see deficiencies of the article without the template.

One friendly suggestion, now that I know better. Despite the deficiencies of most econ articles (and certainly those I have started or otherwise edited), keep edits fun rather than a chore. The latter could slow you from the enormous amount you're learning in the course of your studies.

I'll move that Talk edit back to the original Talk page.

* The econ articles need all the help they can get, esp. from those who know something about the subject.

§ Instead of stating relevant credentials on your user page, which would be fine, you omit them, leaving it for others to infer from your edits. Best, Thomasmeeks (talk) 21:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I just saw this now. I'm sorry to have let you down about the templates. I hope the ones I picked now are more helpful than the banner of shame that hung there before. Indeed the economics papers seem in bad shape relative to other fields. It will probably take me some time before I find where I can both relax from my studies and do some good, efficiently. I omit credentials from my user page to protect my privacy, and will probably continue to do so until the day I get tenured. Thank you for your help. Yaniv256 (talk) 23:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, you're too queek. I do agree that the new template is not esp. troubling compared to the previous one that you so piquantly describe (; ). I also agree with the sentiment of the new template but fear WP is not paying enough to attract those being summoned.

Your caution & priorities are warranted. Happily WP isn't Facebook. Ah, to be learning at your rate! Best, Thomasmeeks (talk) 19:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Thomasmeeks. You have new messages at Eastlaw's talk page.
Message added 07:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 07:14, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Thomas

Just a quick note to say that I have opposed your nomination for speedy renaming of Category:Urban, rural, and regional economics. It may be a good idea, but it doesn't really fit C2C and I think it is best examined in a full discussion at WP:CFD, or by first deciding the underlying question of whether to follow JEL codes.

Best wishes --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment above and related ones elsewhere, BHG. My delay in responding here was from trying to think through how I might proceed as to the broader points suggested above.* One way would be to solicit comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics on a statement there that addressed those broader issues raised by the closed discussion. The statement might include a resolution (subject to amendment) and rationale for it.

Basic questions include these:

A. What, if any, are the net advantages to WP editors and general readers of following the JEL codes and guidelines?

B. To what extent do WP policies and guidelines allow or support following JEL guidelines for econ categories?

One brief attempted answer to (A) is at (1T) and (1T.1) here.

On (B), brief alternative elaborations defending application of JEL guidelines to WP categories might include these:

1. WP-JEL categories are in general supported by WP:NPOV. The 1st paragraph there reads:

Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. (Italics added.)

I think that most people examining the JEL codes would conclude that it is neutral in the sense stated above, not biased.

2. Moreover, if it’s reliable, the following WP:CAT#General conventions guideline applies:

Particularly for technical subjects, use words and phrases which exist in reliable sources, so that those sources may be used to support inclusion of articles.

What’s relevant is that the JEL words and phrases of category names are part of a classification system. Thus, they need not be used outside a classification system in that exact sense. The quoted statement is arguably supportive of following JEL conventions as to (sub)categories but as constrained by practicality and reflected in the radical incompleteness of WP-JEL categories found throughout JEL classification codes.

There are other concerns of Jonkerz very worth addressing, but I've already gone on too long here.

* Before the above arrived, I had compiled 15 JEL code updates (as gleaned from http://www.aeaweb.org/journal/jel_class_system.php), but those can wait proposed category name changes, especially pending action (or not) at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_22#Category:Health.2C_education.2C_and_welfare_economics. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 13:59, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Thomas, can we postpone further discussion of this matter a week or so? I've read all your comments, but haven't had the time to draft an WP:RFC and would prefer to let the question sink in for a while. BW, jonkerz ♠talk 14:33, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

... or longer. Sure thing. Actually I was hoping you'd take a look at what I might come up first, prior to my proceeding to an RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics. If you did the same before you posted an alternate RFC, I'd be happy to respond. Maybe we'd end up at the same page, rather than 2. There might even no differences worth disputing. I'll be working away in the meanwhile to address your concerns to the end of reducing future disagreements. A draft of my proposal might be at User:Thomasmeeks/Rough draft2. Thanks for your response. -- Thomasmeeks (talk) 17:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Please note that constructs such as ibid. (or equivalently ibid.-like dashes (_____)) are discouraged by Wikipedia's style guide for footnotes. The use of bullets in footnotes is also bizarre. Also note that instructions such as "close Pages tab and press +" make articles look unprofessional. And please try to have clearer edit summaries. Thank you. --Omnipaedista (talk) 08:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, O. Forgive the uncharacteristic personal observations, but I've seen your user name before, possibly even, and, based on my very cursory impression of things that would be hard to fake, it seems to be no overstatement. I take all your comment seriously, even enough to dispute in some cases. For ease of reference, let me number the following.

1T. I do not like ibid. either, but sub-dashes (_____)) in place of author names in footnotes are not almost-ibid. equivalent IMO. I've been unsuccessful as yet in tracking down MOS deprecations of such dashes (help, please!). In any case, arguably they do have the advantage of communicating author info faster to the reader than repeating the same name again. And on WP, quick communication can really help.

2T. Let be me make this argument for bulleting of bundled footnotes. It's not far from the alternative guideline specified by WP:CITEBUNDLE, which uses illuminated *s instead.

The preceding guideline link treats the first bundled citation asymmetrically from those that follow in omitting the asterisk. IMO lining the bundled cites all parallel is easier on the eye than having the first citation right-indented compared to the others. The use of bullets instead illuminated *s is also more minimalist, thus, less distracting & more functional IMO.

Let me stop here for now. Thank you. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 15:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Greetings! I've replied at User talk:Tyrol5, if you haven't seen it yet. If you have, there was a slight typo in my original response ("consensus to promote" rather than the correct "consensus to move" — a Freudian slip perhaps, since I've participated in discussions regarding RFA reform, but I digress). But I'm sure you get the point. Take care, Tyrol5 [Talk] 02:50, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Well I did see it earlier and appreciated it but just now couldn't find the "slip" (too late at night ?). In any case my indubitable slip before I corrected it at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Public_choice_theory&diff=533370888&oldid=533327735 of merely merely omitting a space after a URL and before "ten" in an embedded link may well have stalled the whole process by obscuring the '10-fold more frequent use of PC over PCE (when "economics" is included in Google scholar search to pin down the relevant use). So, I win the "slip" contest for the day. Thank you. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 03:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I fixed it before I came here (in hindsight I probably should've amended it at the end). I've seen "slips" that have resulted in far worse than a delayed RM discussion—believe me. And when it comes to making them, you're most certainly in good company (of which, you might imagine, I'm a part!). Regards, Tyrol5 [Talk] 03:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the pat on the back..... Yep, the fires were starting to get scary but over it now. Have a good one!! Rocketrod1960 (talk) 07:18, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Much appreciated! Rinconsoleao (talk) 14:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello Thomas, Just to let you know, I'm going to revert the width change back to 20 em. This is less for my concerns than for the number of other debates around this navbox at this moment. I favored the 20 em standard because the navbox was just getting too long - frequently longer than the stubs it was placed in. CsDix has spent a great deal of time trying to get the defaults for all the other navboxes set to 20 em, and to match the default for thumbnails as well. So alot has been committed to this standard. To resolve your concerns, he has experimented with sidebar sections. However, others have just questioned the code for this (and someone else provided an alternate solution to the section listing problem at the very bottom of the navbox just today. So, just to let them work out the mechanics first, I'm going to leave the box at 20 em for now. Schrauwers (talk) 20:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Thomas, I'll try to clarify my comments a little with this example. Check under case studies, and you'll see there are sub-headings, and these can be lists like you want. (but expandable). However, as you see in this example, Thumperward has questioned the code CsDix used to accomplish this (check out the template discussion board). This code had been used on the Anthropology navbox but this morning Frietjes tried alternate code. As a non-programmer I really can't follow the discussion - if you want, you can contribute to their discussion and I'll sit it out.Schrauwers (talk) 22:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I can see why you'd want the main sidebar and its offshoots to be the same width, as in your example where the 2 mesh, one under the other at Anthropology of religion. That's all I'd add to my earlier Edit summary. But life goes on. Have a good one. --00:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Hello again Thomas. I have managed to resolve both the sidebar length issue and the sidebar subsection issue by moving to a collapsible format, now set at 18 em. Hopefully you can now belatedly do what you had planned.Schrauwers (talk) 22:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, thx.

It looks like any change of Template:Anthropology would be moot with its replacement by Template:Anthropology collapsible, which is already narrowed in the way I was suggesting. I like the earlier one, b/c it suggests to the viewer the range topics treated without having to show everything. Also, some of the headings there are linked, suggesting an organizing thread for the contents that follow, whereas the collapsible colored headings misleadingly suggest links. Still, collapsibility is one way of dealing with the problem of stubs.

Per top edit, I rediscovered one related discussion at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2013_March_20#Template:Sidebar_subsection.

Q1T. [Are] there any other location[s] of discussion that you could readily locate? Thanks. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 07:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I also preferred the uncollapsed version, but it was becoming quite a space hog. I liked the Template sidebar subsection precisely because it allowed the introduction of organizing threads. However Frietjes provided an alternative which I've used until some decision is reached on the status of CsDix's sidebar subsection template. As far as I know, however, the collapsible coloured headings can be made into links. In the Anthropology of Religion box, fox example, clicking on that heading leads to that page. Schrauwers (talk) 12:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, S. I think that the answer to my question above (as amended) is: No. I thought that your Frietjes reference above was to some exchange between you, but evidently it refers to this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Anthropology&diff=546929234&oldid=546801620

which in IMO has a disadvantage (even after your improvement in the collapsible version) that a subsection heading indicated by a colon is nonstandard, whereas italics can be described as a less visually less-striking version of bolding. Less-striking is what fits for a subheading, whereas a colon in this context is vertically challenging relative to the h(orizontal)list with connecting dots.

Relative to placing all those links in a coherent template and IMO opinion stimulating interest in the subject, I see an advantage in the longer template, even with the stubs problem. Rather, the stub reader might feel pleased to see the significance of the stub subject in the broader sweep of the template Anthropology. So, I'm surprised that you wouldn't see it the same way.

On the collapsible template going to the same color as the above related template, IMO opinion, they complement each other. Symbolically, the difference in colors suggests the variety of related subjects treated in Anthropology, which again might stimulate interest in the subject.

This may be a good place to express my delight in your including the full image by Leonardo da Vinci in both templates.

In the hope that the uncollapsed version will come back,I'm going to try to make an improvment in the last section of would eliminate the need for the subsection. If you disagree, please consider discussion on the Talk page there first or indicate why in your (partial?) revert Edit summary or improvement . Or successive Edits or summaries might lead to convergence. Much of edit would correspond to the List section of Template:Economics sidebar:

Lists

• Economists
• Journals
• Publications
• Categories
• Index
• Outline

BW, Thomasmeeks (talk) 19:39, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Good morning, The non-answer to the question was a result of trying to find the discussion. There was an earlier exchange with CsDix about width of the box, and a later one between Frietjes and CsDix which I sat out, as I am not a programmer. I have simply tried to adopt the least controversial template that meets functional needs. I therefor cannot distinguish between those options with superior coding.

As to the issue of length, I am in agreement that uncollapsed does all the things you indicate. The length issue is compounded, however, when mutliple sidebars are concatenated in a single article (which happens on all the major topic lead pages). I am adding your edit of the list section tot he collapsible version in an effort to keep them as alike in content as possible until the final form is settled. It works well, except that the "Background and key concepts" title is too long for 18 em and obscures the "hide/show" link. I've adjusted slightly. The History may move elsewhere.

The issue of colour choice has been broadened by a new edit by Thumperward of the Anthropology of art sidebar which is visually striking, but not 18 em. CsDix did predict that these boxes would not remain at 18 em for long. Your opinion?Schrauwers (talk) 12:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Please see this conversation with Thumperward on the sidebar width.Schrauwers (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Thx, S. It's reassuring that we see things the same way on collapsibility or not. IMO the uncollapsed Template:Anthropology, thx esp. to CsDix & your edits of recent months, is one of the most striking & interesting I've seen.

Very ambitious of you to try picking on the threads you referred to in your previous message. And very timely, as you can from that latest edits at Template:Anthropology, which were prompted from your earlier message. (It's taken me more time than I'd like to admit in getting there — one thing after another.)

Maybe some good things will come out of temporary setbacks, and not just for sidebars of immediate concern to us. In the best of worlds CC/TW would become our collaborator in the common task of trying to improve the sidebars. All for now. BW, Thomasmeeks (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Great to see Template:Anthropology back at Anthropology, §.

1T. On your TW exchange, there is a distinction between the Template:Sidebar/doc defaults (which are unavoidable) and the WP:SIDEBAR guidelines, which include the stipulation that under Advantages (of a sidebar):

1T. Provides a consistent look and navigation system for related articles (though not between different topics — there is no single format across all navigation templates). (Italics added.)

Surely the italicized part protects deviations from defaults that are consistent with guidelines.

Template:Sidebar/doc defaults and stated options are of great assistance but not necessarily sufficient to produce a better sidebar. The last wp:diff link above & here has a WP:SIDEBAR-guideline rationale for the 18em sidebar width. (There are other rationales as well.} Just making the Template:Anthropology of art of width equal to either general Anthropology template IMO would be sufficient reason to change Template:Anthropology of art back to 18em to make it fit the other template. I'd go farther and suggest that you'd have good case for changing that sidebar to have the same colors (or only related colors) and other formatting as at Template:Anthropology or Template:Anthropology collapsible, depending on which you'd use in a particular Anthropology article.

You might even change Template:Anthropology collapsible to the same color as Template:Anthropology (but maybe not to distinguish them more easily). It is possible that someone would object, but IMO, there's a good case for the current Template:Anthropology. Of course someone else might make a better argument for some signficant change there or have the wp:votes to decide otherwise, but that's life.

§ I think that I can correctly infer your 1st initial but did not want to seem overly revealing if I was right. And if S is the first initial of your last name, now that I think of it, S. might not be quite right as a form of address on this Talk page either (oops; ). -- Thomasmeeks (talk) 18:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm amenable to these changes, and the rationales make sense, although Thumperward made an equally stirling defence of the defaults. But you seem to have greater knowledge of how to implement them, so why not dip your toe in the water? I just cut and paste, frequently with poor results. Perhaps it will elicit a conversation, perhaps not. Schrauwers (talk) 19:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

On the last point, right the 1st time (; ).

2T. The expression of a preference for a sidebar.doc default or documented parameter therein (on which, see top line of Template:Sidebar/doc#Usage) is weaker than Sidebar guidelines, per {1T) above IMO. (Otherwise, why wouldn't WP:SIDEBAR say something about only Template:Sidebar/doc counting.) If challenged as to any deviation from a sidebar.doc default or documented parameter there, a reasonable answer should be possible of course, but so should any deviation that goes against a guideline advantage. My toe is a little tired at this point (; ).

3T. On second, I think that collapsible is more vulnerable than Template:Anthropology on the color front per white link (is it a link?) & blue non-links (why doesn't it link if it's blue?). So, I'd recommend using the stronger color format in the former as the latter. As a matter of simplification and harmonization, I'd see no problem. The same applies to the 2 sidebars you've listed above. The simplest solution as to harmonization might be to use the format of Template:Anthropology for all Anthropology collapsibles.

4T. The use of two sidebars for the same discipline in an article could be challenged, but I think it's defensible, esp. if there are no other sidebars in that article. (Of course anyone could decide to add other templates, in which case a Sophie's Choice might necessary as to Anthro sidebars.)

5T. There's also always recourse for a template dispute to a neutrally-worded notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anthropology (and/or adding your WP:User name to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthropology/Members list).

BTW, those are phenomenal contributions to Anthropology that you made, beside which templates might be distraction for you. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 01:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

All is now reverted to 18 em and a lovely default lavender. I await the constructive conversation ;) Schrauwers (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

First reaction: looks great & progress, again. One suggestion: People in appoximate chronological order (from birth or 1st significant publication) per WP:SIDEBAR, 4th paragraph from bottom:

The article links in a navigation template should be grouped into clusters, by topic, or by era, etc. Alphabetical ordering does not provide any additional value to a category containing the same article links.

A bit of a chore, but that listing in effect makes the section a kind of history of the subject & strengthens the 18em§ by clustering according to chronology — much better than alphabetical and more information that way. And consistent with para. 4-6 from bottom

Have a good one.

§ Shorter text lines make the thread easier to tweak for non-chronology & are the equivalent of shorter sentences: easier to digest 2-3 links than 3-4. And as CxDix notes at Template talk:Sidebar#More sophisticated default width setting? an advantage for the current fad of small-screen devices. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 00:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

You have a new message at CsDix's talk page.

Hi, re this edit: the problem that WP:LISTGAP is a shortcut for does not just affect bulleted lists. It affects all lists, whether unordered, ordered or definition; and in the case of unordered lists, it affects them whether they are bulleted or unbulleted. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:52, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. Thx, RR.

1T. Let me try to make a case for the Edit. WP:LISTGAP is under the new "Vertical list" heading, which has as a subsection the newly added "Bulleted vertical lists" supplementing the "Unbulleted vertical lists" subsection. So, I don't see a problem, WP:LISTGAP since includes the latter 2.

2T. It is true that WP:LISTGAP placement leaves out "Horizontal lists", but IMO there can be a good semantic reason for a blank line (or better yet, a :-only line, to indicate intent) in sidebar templates, according to the arguments (1T-3T) at the bottom of Template talk:Sidebar#More sophisticated default width setting?. I appreciate your giving me a chance to respond. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 17:26, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, there's one specific change which I find a bit clunky. The old text was

Do not separate items by leaving blank lines between them, even when using unordered or definition lists.

which you have altered to

For bulleted vertical lists, do not separate items by leaving blank lines between them, even when using unordered or definition lists.

The thing is, a bulleted vertical list is one type of unordered list: the HTML for an unordered list is the UL element, whether vertical or horizontal, bulleted or plain. However, a definition list is a different type of structure: in HTML, it's the DL element; note that in HTML5, it's now called an "association list" (or possibly a "description list"), whereas in HTML 4.01 it was a definition list. Whatever we call it, that's what the semicolon/colon wikimarkup (as used at the start of this paragraph) generates, therefore, although it's not a bulleted list or even an unordered list, WP:LISTGAP still applies. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

3T. OK. Your links are more helpful than at for example Definition list/Unordered list, which IMO might be elaborated on per your link. One fix might be to remove the phrase:

, even when using unordered or definition lists

and move WP:LISTGAP back up to follow "Lists" with this new sentence:

Do not separate list items, including items in a definition list or unordered list, by leaving blank lines between them without a reason, since this causes software such as screen readers to interpret the item following as beginning a new list.

The next sentences, as edited below, can also be moved up to the "Lists" lead:

Lists are meant to group elements of the same kind, and breaking these groups may mislead and confuse a screen-reader user. Improper formatting can more than triple the length of time it takes to read the list.

That meets your point & is close to the wording of WP:MOS#Bulleted and numbered lists:

• Do not leave blank lines between items in a bulleted or numbered list unless there is a reason to do so, since this causes the Wiki software to interpret each item as beginning a new list.

but meets (2T) above, newly-labelled.

Thank you for your help. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 00:20, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Now this is a big improvement. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, I did appreciate your patience. The implicature of your, may I say, felicitously- understated comments I finally realized in due course required much more. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 11:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Would you give me your opinion and guidance please? I am looking at Category:Economics and wondering how rational/soundly based it is. Does it make sense compared to Library of Congress Classification:Class H, subclass HB -- Economic Theory and Demography, Library of Congress Classification:Class H -- Social sciences, Outline of economics, {{Economics}}, or the JEL classification codes? Also, I see 5 general categories with 51 key economic concepts listed by the Council for Economic Education See: . (Getting these aligned might be a worthwhile WikiGnome activity/project that I enjoy.) I am posting this same inquiry to User talk:SPECIFICO, who has done a lot of work on economics subjects. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 03:00, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Thx for your inquiry, SR.

One source not mentioned above but in the Category:Economics (2nd sentence) is: JEL classification codes, because of its wide use within econ as a field. Against that, [A]t least one WP-econ user has suggested making Category:Economics conform more closely to one part of JEL: A (namely, General Economic[s]) [within the JEL classification codes], as defined by the links in the 2nd to last paragraph of the lead for JEL classification codes. The rationale would be that it's well-defined, coherent, well-documented current, systematically updated, & widely used. So, why should WP have to reinvent what's already available? A difficulty of Category:Economics is that there's a lot of overlap with subjects already categorized within WP using the JEL codes, resulting in unnecessary duplication.

IMO, LC is fine for published books but not well-articulated for WP uses (unless we can get LC to do WP work ; ). The other sources lack general acceptance outside the U.S. or within the econ profession by comparison with the JEL codes.

Best wishes, Thomasmeeks (talk) 02:00, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Ways I've found helpful in applying the JEL codes to WP article classifications include:

A. Doing searches of the article name in The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics Online here, then inspecting the The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2008, v. 8, Appendix IV, pp. 854–69, for the JEL code(s) where name appears, and using the WP-JEL-code counterpart of that (or those) as the classification term, for example "happiness".

B. Doing Google & Google scholar searches of the article name in question + the term JEL to see inspect where it is JEL-code-classified in articles that use the term, esp. for review-of-the-literature articles, for example a search of: happiness economics JEL.

Both methods are illustrated at Happiness economics#Subject classifications per footnoted examples with online-listed JEL codes. In this you'd want to discard JEL listings less obviously related to the WP-article subject, since papers can cross-classify in multiple ways less directly relevant to the WP article subject if it is not strictly a review-of-literature article on the WP article name. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 09:22, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Egad. This is more complicated than I thought. I shall cogitate, cogitate, cogitate. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 15:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Yikes. Sorry for overlooking your mention of the JEL codes at the top. Cogitate, indeed ( ;).

I tried to salvage what I could of my 1st para. at the top as per strike-outs and [bracketed] inserts. Let me approach it another way.

For WP econ articles, the JEL classification codes IMO are always necessary a starting point, because they are written to be exhaustive. By that standard, Category:Economics as a disconnect from the JEL codes is redundant and a hodgepodge. Are the JEL codes always sufficient? Yes, in the case of cross-JEL-codes (for example in B above). No, in cross-classifications outside of the JEL codes. As a practical matter, I don't know of instances econ articles that exclude JEL code categories would be helpful. Thx for your comments. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 22:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

When convenient, please visit Financial economics - I've done a major edit a few months back. Thanks. Fintor (talk) 10:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

OK. Might take a while. Thx for asking. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 21:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your response ☺ Fintor (talk) 10:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Great. For the record, my response is at User talk:Fintor#Re: Financial Economics review. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Has someone hacked your user? I had to revert some messy citations on this article. I suppose they were meant to be references to go in Notes, but they were left inline. Also, there was a sentence ending "indexed in each." Myrvin (talk) 07:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I have added several citations.Myrvin (talk) 09:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, happily. In my case, I'd have done better to do it right the first time. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 13:26, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

I cannot see the reason for you changes to this article - please debate on the talk page and explain. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Critical Rationalism: A Restatement and Defence into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:55, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! I added a useful fn. from Critical rationalism#The pitfalls of justificationism and positivism, this time with attribution. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 12:33, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, are you especially attached to this kind of citation style with ASCII bullets, references which contain multiple citations, inline links and so on? While working on the standardisation of {{cite journal}} usage, I'm often encountering economics articles whose references are such a jungle that I have no idea how to deal with it. They're also often full of ten years old URLs which are broken now. Is it a problem to redo such references from scratch? Or do you know someone who understands this peculiar citation style and can perform some cleanups on it? Thanks for the help, Nemo 09:55, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for creating John McCormack (journalist).

User:Willbb234 while examining this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

Create talk page and assess as stub

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Willbb234}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Willbb234^Talk (please {{ping}} me in replies) 21:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Willbb234:

I'm all for it & tried to indicate such in the Edit summary for the WP page: "Creating John McCormack (journalist) [as] stub"

-- Thomasmeeks (talk) 00:35, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

On 28 November 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Edward Lazear, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer^T•C 17:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

  Thank you, Spencer.  Will do.

   Thomasmeeks (talk) 22:56, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello Thomasmeeks,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged History of the Jews and Judaism in the Land of IsraelRoman era (64 BCE – 324 CE) for deletion in response to your request.

If you didn't intend to make such a request and don't want the article to be deleted, you can edit the page and remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

John B123 (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Nice to "meet" you! T. E. Meeks (talk) 11:23, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

(talk) 11:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

11:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

You added a statement that salamanders lack hearts to the article, with a reference to the Wall Street Journal that I can't access. I believe this is incorrect and that all amphibians have hearts, see Amphibian#Circulatory_system. Can you quote the relevant sentence you found in the source article? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:41, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you your inquiry. Regrettably, I badly misread the book-review article in that respect. Thank you for catching the mistake. Thomasmeeks (talk)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Commodity, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Principles of Economics.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Linwood Holton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page George Allen.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Thomasmeeks,

Thank you for creating How Not To Die: Discover the Foods Scientifically Proven to Prevent and Reverse Disease.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

This article needs more material and references. NBOOKS applies.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Whiteguru}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Whiteguru (talk) 07:41, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Thomasmeeks,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Dr vulpes, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I have tagged How Not To Die: Discover the Foods Scientifically Proven to Prevent and Reverse Disease for deletion, because it doesn't appear to contain any encyclopedic content. You may find our guide for writing quality articles to be extremely informative. Also, you may want to consider working on future articles in draft space first, where they cannot be deleted for lacking content.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the deleting administrator.

For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Dr vulpes}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 03:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Dr. V.

My reply on Speedy Deletion is on Wiki Talk page for the respective entry.

I see that you have a Wiki interest on plants. Happily, Dr. Greger's book is about the life-extending effects of a plant-based diet. The 3rd chapter is titled "How Not to Die from Brain Diseases", right up your alley.

The book has 42 pp. of notes supporting a plant-based diet. An amazing book. Used copies available for a song.

Cheers, Thomasmeeks (talk) 22:15, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Thomasmeeks

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged How Not To Die: Discover the Foods Scientifically Proven to Prevent and Reverse Disease for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons. For more details please see the notice on the article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Dr vulpes ^{(💬 • 📝)} 05:03, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Stephen King, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 14:16, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Stephen King, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history, as well as helping prevent edit conflicts. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 14:17, 30 April 2023 (UTC)