User talk:Krator

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

⇧ New message.
I will respond here.
For various reasons, I prefer all discussion, even personal notes, on article talk pages. Not here.
Note: notifications of replies somewhere else are appreciated.
⇩

[edit] Overlord (2007 video game)

Any chance of an assessment to see if this can be brought up to an FA article? If so then I'll submit it for peer review after (or fix what needs to be done first of course). Don't worry if you're busy, I'm working on multiple others aswell. Stabby Joe (talk) 13:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I've finished/slowed down on others so any feedback then I would work more on the article if required for a FA status. Stabby Joe (talk) 12:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I know you're busy most of the time but if you could mention whether you could or not, save me playing the waiting game lol? Stabby Joe (talk) 23:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
? Stabby Joe (talk) 15:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] re: Reviews and FACs

Ping! --ROGER DAVIES talk 17:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:VG

I see. I left a short suggestion on the edit summary, but I'm sure I can come up with more to say in the article's talk page. I'm a little busy at the moment, so it might be delayed. Anyways, thanks for telling me! Cheers, haha169 (talk) 23:37, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Oh, and since you are on the WP:PRV list for video game peer reviewers, could you leave a peer review here? Thanks! --haha169 (talk) 04:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE: WP VG SNES Games list

I'll try to add suggestions in future assessments, actually, i see almost nothing wrong with the List of Super Nintendo Entertainment System games which is why i cant post anything specific..

The only thing I'd like to see would be box art shots.. which i think aint possible due fair use rules..

Anyway, thanks for pointing it out ;) Yzmo talk 19:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Amsterdam

He, Zou je voortaan zo vriendelijk kunnen zijn om niet complete stukken uit een artikel te gooien zonder iemand hiervan op de hoogte te stellen? Massimo Catarinella (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Please be aware that this is a wiki, and that anyone is free to edit articles, including the removal of things others write. You are, in turn, free to revert my edits and removal if you deem the reason for it insufficient. We can then discuss what the best option is. I deemed the edit summary of my removal sufficient to indicate why I did this. In a way, the edit summary is the notification you ask for. User:Krator (t c) 19:02, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review request

Hello, Krator. This certainly isn't the first time we've talked, and I've got a feeling it won't be the last. Anyway, after seeing your name at WP:PRV and reading up on the discussions about lists at the Video games project talk page (mostly about how you assess them), I was wondering if you'd be willing to do a peer review for me on a list I've been working on. The list is List of Sega 32X games and the review page is here, should you choose to accept. I'm going to start working on video game lists (especially ones relating to Sega, since it's part of another project I'm very active with). I decided to start small with the 32X list, but if I can get it past WP:FLC, I'm going to start working on other lists and improving them.

Oh, and thanks for your comments on the Crush 40 article, for the many times you were willing to give them. The article did make GA status, but it wouldn't have been possible without your help with the reviews and extra comments. Thanks again. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 18:36, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Done. User:Krator (t c) 22:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Peer Review help

Thank you for you work as a peer review volunteer. Since March, there has been a concerted effort to make sure all peer review requests get some response. Requests that have gone three days or longer without a substantial response are listed at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog. I have three requests to help this continue.

1) If you are asked to do a peer review, please ask the person who made the request to also do a review, preferably of a request that has not yet had feedback. This is fairly simple, but helps. For example when I review requests on the backlog list, I close with Hope this helps. If my comments are useful, please consider peer reviewing an article, especially one at Wikipedia:Peer review/backlog (which is how I found this article). Yours, ...

2) While there are several people who help with the backlog, lately I have been doing up to 3 or 4 peer reviews a day and can not keep this up much longer. We need help. Since there are now well over 100 names on the PR volunteers page, if each volunteer reviewed just one PR request without a response from the list each month, it would easily take care of the "no response" backlog. To help spread out the load, I suggest those willing pick a day of the month and do a review that day (for example, my first edit was on the 8th, so I could pick the 8th). Please pick a peer review request with no responses yet, if possible off the backlog list. If you want, leave a note on my talk page as to which day you picked and I will remind you each month.

3) I have made some proposals to add some limits to peer review requests at Wikipedia_talk:Peer_review#Proposed_limits. The idea is to prevent any one user from overly burdening the process. These seem fairly reasonable (one PR request per editor per day, only four total PR requests per editor at a time, PR requests with cleanup banners can be delisted (like GAN quick fail), and wait two weeks to relist a PR request after it is archived), but have gotten no feedback in one week. If you have any thoughts on these, please weigh in.

Thanks again for your help and in advance for any assistance with the backlog. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your thoughtful comments. If someone seems unable to write I will not ask them to do a review. I also find many new editors are not comfortable reviewing and do not despite being asked, but some do review and I think some comments are more helpful than zero comments or just one comment (see Wikipedia:Peer review/May 2007 for how things used to be - about 1/4 got no repsonse at all and another 1/4 got maybe a sentence or two). I also find that about half of the requests are for articles that are nowhere near ready even for GA, so just saying expand the lead, add refs and make them consistent, poiting out areas for expansion and problems with images is useful. Yours, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 01:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Note

Request fulfilled. All the best in your future endevors! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blade Runner (video game)

Hi there. The Blade Runner (video game) article has just been nominated for a peer review. The article has gone through some major changes in the last month, and it would be appreciated if an editor/contributor like yourself, could head over and give some sound opinion and ideas on improvements for the article. If you are interested in joining the peer review discussion, please follow the link. Thank you very much for your help Wikipedia:Peer review/Blade Runner (video game)/archive1. - Nreive (talk) 11:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your question on the Humanities Refdesk

Hi. I answered a question of your's on the Hum RD a while ago about the effect of Budget deficits on inflation. My answer then was incorrect because I mistook a deficit for a surplus. Here's the correction. Sorry! Zain Ebrahim (talk) 12:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I still don't understand the answer anyway, but thanks! User:Krator (t c) 15:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay - I wrote an exam and I wanted to spend time doing this properly. Hopefully it's not too late for your exam!

In the AD-AS model, we look at three schedules mentioned below. Note that the y-axis represents the price level (like a CPI index) and the x-axis represents real output.

  • Long run Aggregate Supply (LAS) - this is a vertical line at an output level equal to full employment (FE) output (you may know this as Potential Output). Real FE output doesn't allow inflation to affect it therefore the LAS curve is vertical.
  • Short run Aggregate Supply (SAS) - this is the usual supply schedule you'll be familiar with. At higher prices, producers are willing to supply more goods and services therefore SAS slopes upwards. As we'll see below, in the long run output tends towards full employment. An important point to note here is that at each point on the SAS curve money wages are constant so real wages decline as you move up.
  • Aggregate demand (AD) - this is the usual downward sloping AD curve.

If the economy is at the point where AD crosses SAS then we're in short run equillibrium and similarly for long run equiliibrium.

Getting to your question then. Let's assume that the economy is at short run and long run equillibrium (i.e. all three curves intersect). If the government runs a deficit then it essentially increases government spending. As you know, AD = C + I + G + (X - Z) so if G increases then AD increases. This has the short term effect of increasing the price level and increasing the level of real GDP (can you see why?). This is the short run effect of the deficit. At this point we're in an Inflationary gap.

In the long run, higher prices (i.e. lower real wages) coupled with increased profitability for the producers will result in labour unions demanding higher money wages. As producers give in to these demands the SAS decreases (i.e. shifts to the left) and the economy lands up at full employment GDP but with a higher price level than we started with (can you see why?).

I've assumed the following:

  • The labour unions reacted quickly to the new state of the economy and the producers gave in to their demands.
  • So SAS responded quickly to the increased AD.
  • Crowding out does not occur. This is perhaps a heavy assumption - when governments increase spending they may "crowd out" investment spending by producers and I (in the AD equation) decreases. So in the end, AD won't increase at all.

Hope this helps. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 20:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm familiar with the theory you present above, and thanks for taking the time to explain the issue. My main issue is one with constant vs. a change in government deficit. I understand that if (G - T) decreases, the whole logic above applies. But what about the situation where all that is known is that (G - T) is negative, without any information on whether it represents an increase or a decrease? I would completely stand by your logic above in the situation when there is a change in government deficit (or surplus), but why do curves shift simply because of the existence of such a deficit? User:Krator (t c) 20:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Wait, you do realise that if (G - T) decreases then the opposite of what happened above would occur, right? Negative (G - T) implies a surplus. Assuming you meant "positive", then to answer your new question think about what would happen if G was continuously greater than T. Where would the money come from? Borrowings which entail interest expense would be the answer. To finance sustained deficits, borrowings (and therefore interest expenses) would have to increase every year. Also note that the multiplier with repect to spending is greater (in absolute value - i.e. up or down) than the tax multiplier. So if G and T increase by the same amount then the overall effect would be in favour of the increased G.
You need to think about where you are in the model and look at what changes. If nothing changes then nothing changes. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 21:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I do realise the first. Thanks for the second. I'll get back on this on monday. User:Krator (t c) 21:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The WPVG Newsletter (June 2008)

[edit] Proposed deletion of Squirrel (debate)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Squirrel (debate), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? BradV 02:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)