User talk:Rinconsoleao

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Rinconsoleao, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! 

And don't forget, the edit summary is your friend. :) – Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 14:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!! --Rinconsoleao 17:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

{{helpme}}!! Help!! I tried to classify the page "dynamic stochastic general equilibrium" as a member of the category "macroeconomics and monetary economics". But instead, what shows up is "Category: economics"! Does anybody know how to do this right?

Hi there! What you need to use is square brackets [[ rather than curly {{ around your category designations. I went ahead and fixed it so you can see what I mean. Nerwen 08:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Wow... 14 minutes from question to solution!! Thanks... all I can say is: Wikipedia is amazing!! --Rinconsoleao 08:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Foundations of Economic Analysis

Well, the article and Talk page are on my Watchlist, so separate notice is unnecessaary (though I appreciate the offer). -- Thomasmeeks 15:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I've addressed your allegations

I addressed your allegations. See the talk page for Applied Information Economics

Also, I did not undo all of your changes, but I did a couple along with an offer to discuss the changes on either of our talk pages or the Applied Information Economics page. I commented on some changes without undoing them. You might find I'm very reasonable.Hubbardaie 03:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Applied Information Economics page

I appreciate your comments. Since you clearly spend a lot of time on economics related articles, perhaps you could moderate the "limitations" section. I cannot make major changes to the article with my COI, as I've disclosed in the discussion page. When I read the comments made by Pgreenfinch, it is clear that he is talking about something entirely different from AIE. As I said in the discussion page of AIE. He is talking about something more macroeconomic and descriptive, not normative decision models like AIE. If you agree, please remove that limitation section. I'm entirely open to the idea of adding limitations and removing the NPOV tag, but the limitations discussed should at least be about the topic of the article. Thanks in advance for any assistance.Hubbardaie 13:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help, but I am much less informed about decision theory than about economics, so I can't judge what the limitations of AIE may be. We should wait for a neutral informed party to come along. --Rinconsoleao 13:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be occupied with deleting references to AIE. Actually, when I first created the article, it had none. Then someone added an "orphan" tag to it and I got on the ball and made several references. Now it swings back the other way. I'm not surprised there are varying opinions on the relevance of various references for any article. Perhaps we should discuss if you think there should be any references by other articles to AIE at all and, if so, what those would be.Hubbardaie 19:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Ouch, I hadn't thought of that, I can certainly see why you feel pushed both ways. But the reason the situation arose in the first place is that you wrote an article on your own invention, instead of waiting for it to have sufficient public impact that someone else would do it for you. I want you to understand that from the description, your method sounds very interesting and sensible to me. But since decision theory is not my field, I don't know how important, influential, successful, and original your method is (if I did, I would probably write the article myself). The reason I discovered your method is that I came across extremely prominent, non-neutral mentions of it in two pages on topics I am reasonably well informed about (Monte Carlo methods and Information Economics, by which I understand a key subfield of microeconomics). Monte Carlo methods, for example, are a huge field applied across physical sciences, mathematics, and statistics--- just look at the applications list. The vast majority have nothing at all to do with decision theory, and therefore methods like "CPA" can't possibly have anything to do with those applications. Therefore it's obviously inappropriate to mention your method in the introduction of the article as an improvement of the "basic MC method", or to devote a whole section to your method immediately after the list of applications. It would be misleading for anyone to mention it so prominently, when it is unrelated to most of the material in the article, and it is especially inappropriate for the person promoting the method to have done so while using normative words like "improvement". Once I discovered those two mentions of your method, I searched for it on all pages, and found it again and again prominently mentioned, and always stated in an non-neutral way ("improvement", "more robust", "advanced", etc.) I cannot see how those edits could fail to violate Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. I will obviously not object if at some point in the future other users begin to comment on AIE. But please don't take that job into your own hands. I.e., be very patient. --Rinconsoleao 20:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I'll concede your point on both the Monte Carlo and Information Economics articles with a caveat. There are very specific, albiet narrower, uses of those terms where the reference to AIE is entirely appropriate. In retrospect, I can see where it didn't make sense to mention AIE in the intro of the Monte Carlo article. But if it ever discusses any use of it in a decision theory sense (and I think the article is incomplete if it doesnt address decision analysis applications) then it would make sense to reference AIE.
As it happens, I didn't delete the reference to AIE in Monte Carlo method, I just moved it and gave it a more neutral title. --Rinconsoleao 21:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

In regards to Information Economics, I've written extensively in the discussion of that article asking for some disambiguation. Its an entirely muddled grouping of different uses of the term that really have little to do with each other. Its all in the discussion. I claim that AIE is relevant only to two of those specific uses of the term. First the application of the various game/decision theory approaches for computing the value of information in specific decisions under uncertainty. AIE, as the name implies, is literally an application of that theory. Also, the term "information economics" (I think I mentioned before) was used for the name of a popular weighted scoring method used by IT managers in the 1990's. Some might think the article alludes to that since it mentions IT. I assure you that the difference between that approach an anything that won a Nobel is night and day. I developed AIE partly in response to that method and that is another potential reference for AIE. But, as you suggested, I'll leave it to others to make that connection. Hubbardaie 21:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there should be disambiguation. I left a note on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics page, fishing for a user who knows enough both about microeconomic theory and about management methods to do the job well. If nobody shows up in the near future, I might try it myself. --Rinconsoleao 21:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Foundations

Hi, Rinconsoleao. I gave away my copy (prematurely as it happens), but pagination in the Enlarged ed. is the same as in the 1st ed. There's just an added intro and appendices. Have only glanced at your Edit but am not be inclined to revert, period, or unless there was nothing worth saving. Programming occurs only in a new appendix (old stuff by then). --Thomasmeeks 15:31, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanx!! --Rinconsoleao 15:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: “Questions and comments about marginal utility...”

Replies given. —SlamDiego←T 02:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Applied Information Economics

You seem to be active in the economics area, so I'm seeking your opinion and help. The subject article is linked to from the Economics article and from Template:Economics. AIE is a technique for use in evaluating information technology buying decisions. It seems to be not much more than a commercial product of a small company operated out of a residence in Glen Ellyn, Illinois, USA. (Company web site HERE. The technique doesn't seem to be very widely used, yet it appears alongside several foundation techniques in economics. I don't think it belongs in the Economics article or the template, but I'm hesitant to meddle in subject areas where I've had no training. Could you look at this situation and fix it? DCLawyer 13:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! My impression is that the AIE method is a valid idea, but you are right, it's the commercial product of one little-known consulting firm. Links directly from Economics and Template:Economics are completely inappropriate, on Wikipedia's criteria of "notability", so I removed them. --Rinconsoleao 11:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Berkeley Electronic Press

[edit] National accounts

Hi, Rinconsoleao. Well, you've been busy. As per the Talk page of National accounts, do you still favor the merge proposal? If not, one of us could take it down. Thx. --Thomasmeeks 13:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, again. I put up some elaboration of my earlier point today at Talk:National accounts#Proposal to Merge with National Income and Product Accounts. If you still believe that if is better to merge, I believe that you ought to respond to comments there. I will take your not responding there as an indication that it is not a live proposal. On neither of the relevant Talk pages does there seem to be a consensus for merger. The fact that the merge template is down for the NIPA article also sumpports this interpretation. Thx. --Thomasmeeks 11:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:PROD and New Economics vs New Classical Macroeconomics

Page histories need to be kept, which is why you need to use WP:RM to move pages. Please don't PROD copy-paste moves. 132.205.44.5 21:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you had a username I could correspond with! I still think New Economics should be deleted, rather than being turned into a redirect to New Classical Macroeconomics. 'New Economics' is not, as far as I know, a synonym for 'New Classical Macroeconomics', but redirecting from the former to the latter might give the false impression that Wikipedia regards them as synonyms. In fact, I'm not aware of any standard meaning for 'New Economics'. I left a query on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Economics to see if anyone else knows a meaning for that term. --Rinconsoleao 16:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
You cannot delete a page because it is misnamed, you have to move a page using the WP:RM process. A copy-paste move is explicitly prohibited by WikiPedia policies. Please use the requested move process at WP:RM in future if you wish to rename a page. The reason that this is explicitly prohibited is that WikiPedia requires that edit histories be maintained. Your copypaste move breaks the link to the page history. If you wish to delete the resultant redirect, you can request that at the same time as you request the move, or you can subsequently request a delete at WP:RFD, as WP:PROD is not supposed to be used on redirects. 132.205.44.5 22:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Note that the page history has been fixed through the WP:SPLICE administrative clean-up process. 132.205.44.5 22:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Cobweb9.png

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Cobweb9.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 22:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The neoclassical school of economics

Is there a particular reason you deleted this from Deflation? Is not a school of economic by this name exists? (shool meaning school of thought)

Is it not based on Kaines school of economics?

Sorry I am not an expert but just remember from my business school. Igor Berger (talk) 17:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph said deflation was impossible according to neoclassical economics. That's not correct. According to neoclassical economics, a large decrease in the money supply will cause deflation. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes you are correct! Impossible is not the word. Sorry I did not notice that. If I still remember it is supose to say that the markets can be cotroled through monetory policy, but not imposible to have deflation. Thank you for the explanation. Igor Berger (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inflation/Deflation

I've added deflation to my watchlist, in addition to the already-watched inflation. Bullfish 18:29, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Good idea in todays society. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN it seems the winds have stopped... 22:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Commenting.

Don't insert comments in a way that breaks the comments of other editors into unsigned blocks of text in the discussion; insert your reply after the signature of the other editor. Don't insert comments in a way that cause the auto-numbering of comments to be trashed-out. It is trivial to refer to number comments by their numbers. —SlamDiego←T 21:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Those are valid points Slam. But it's also trivial to read comments in order by using 'history', and some users (at least one I can vouch for) prefer to read related comments next to each other. By the way, is it really necessary to make a suggestion like this in the imperative tense? --Rinconsoleao (talk) 09:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Necessary, no; desirable, yes. You turned the previous discussion into a rat's nest (which is a very large part of the reason that the present discussion is now under way). There's no excuse for your starting to do that again. —SlamDiego←T 17:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Deleted links

The links were deleted because they are repeated twice in the article; for some, three times. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN it seems the winds have stopped... 18:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter I suppose. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN it seems the winds have stopped... 18:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Destruction of inflation effects etc

Risconsoleao, the IP user editing these article with "real value of monetary" etc is also known as User_talk:Herbou and several other sockpuppets, all being the author at realvalueaccounting.com, aka Nicolas Smith (sp?). There is a conflict of interest and a chequered history here.--Gregalton (talk) 12:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info!! --Rinconsoleao (talk) 12:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Much thanks to you for being constructive with him. I'm hoping it works out better this time.--Gregalton (talk) 17:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Needing third opinion

Can you help us (with your "third opinion") into a definition with coordination problem base (origined from here)? --Krauss (talk) 13:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stagflation

Please compare the current section regarding the dilemma aspect of stagflation to the two paragraphs I recently reproduced in the Discussion section (drawn from the 17 Dec 07 version) of the article. I find the earlier version far clearer, although the History will show that I attempted to edit the existing version.ExecTaxes (talk) 18:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Metropolis-Hastings algorithm

Hi Rinconsoleao

You mention in your article that it is desirable to have an acceptance rate of about 60%. I was just picturing a distribution with a very flat surface in which case it may be difficult to ever achieve an acceptance rate low as 60%. Isn't that percentage relative to the shape of P(x)?

Relating to criteria of convergence, could you give some hint in conceptual terms on how to practicably determine by when "the initial state has been forgotten"?

Regards, Harri-hoodi (talk) 11:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it's really not my article. I just tried to clarify the discussion a little bit. --Rinconsoleao (talk) 09:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting your input at Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics/Featured Article drive

Since you are a member of WikiProject Economics, I would like to direct your attention to Wikipedia:WikiProject Economics/Featured Article drive. We are currently deciding on an economics-related article to bring to Featured Article status and we would like your input. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 15:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lucas critique

Hi there. I saw that your recent edit to Lucas critique added back a contraction ("doesn't") that I previously removed. I didn't revert your edit, but I did replace "doesn't" with "does not", per Wikipedia's Manual of Style, specifically Wikipedia:MOS#Avoid_contractions which says:

In general, the use of contractions—such as don't, can't, won't, they'd, should've, it's—is informal and should be avoided; however, contractions should be left unchanged when they occur in a quotation.

This is just a heads up, no big deal. Thanks. -FrankTobia (talk) 16:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Diamond-Dybvig

The Original Barnstar
Thanks for your work in writing the first version of Diamond-Dybvig model. This topic can be forbidding to non-experts and your writing covers it clearly and cleanly. Well done and your work is appreciated. Eubulides (talk) 16:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I hope to add more to it soon... --Rinconsoleao (talk) 09:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)